Peter Otten於 2019年9月20日星期五 UTC+8下午3時31分48秒寫道：
> jf...@ms4.hinet.net wrote:
>
> x = 3
> def foo():
> > ... exec("print(globals(), locals()); x = x + 1; print(globals(),
> > locals())") ...
> foo()
> > {'foo': , '__package__': None, '__builtins__':
> > {, '__loader__': > {'_froze
jf...@ms4.hinet.net wrote:
x = 3
def foo():
> ... exec("print(globals(), locals()); x = x + 1; print(globals(),
> locals())") ...
foo()
> {'foo': , '__package__': None, '__builtins__':
> {, '__loader__': {'_frozen_importlib.BuiltinImporter'>, '__doc__': None, '__name__':
> {'__
>>> x = 3
>>> def foo():
... exec("print(globals(), locals()); x = x + 1; print(globals(),
locals())")
...
>>> foo()
{'foo': , '__package__': None, '__builtins__':
, '__loader__': , '__doc__': None, '__name__': '__main__',
'__spec__': None, 'x': 3} {}
{'foo': , '__package__': None, '__builti
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 20:24:49 UTC+2 schrieb Peter Otten:
> Eko palypse wrote:
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 18:31:43 UTC+2 schrieb Peter Otten:
> >> Eko palypse wrote:
> >>
> >> > No, I have to correct myself
> >> >
> >> > x = 5
> >> > def f1():
> >> > exec("x = x + 1;
Eko palypse wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 18:31:43 UTC+2 schrieb Peter Otten:
>> Eko palypse wrote:
>>
>> > No, I have to correct myself
>> >
>> > x = 5
>> > def f1():
>> > exec("x = x + 1; print('f1 in:', x)")
>> > return x
>> > print('f1 out', f1())
>> >
>> > results in t
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 18:31:43 UTC+2 schrieb Peter Otten:
> Eko palypse wrote:
>
> > No, I have to correct myself
> >
> > x = 5
> > def f1():
> > exec("x = x + 1; print('f1 in:', x)")
> > return x
> > print('f1 out', f1())
> >
> > results in the same, for me confusing, result
First thank you for all the answers, very much appreciated.
I assume the root cause might be explained by the zen of python as well.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
Maybe I need to rethink my implementation :-)
Eren
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-l
Eko palypse wrote:
> No, I have to correct myself
>
> x = 5
> def f1():
> exec("x = x + 1; print('f1 in:', x)")
> return x
> print('f1 out', f1())
>
> results in the same, for me confusing, results.
>
> f1 in: 6
> f1 out 5
Inside a function exec assignments go to a *copy* of the local
No, I have to correct myself
x = 5
def f1():
exec("x = x + 1; print('f1 in:', x)")
return x
print('f1 out', f1())
results in the same, for me confusing, results.
f1 in: 6
f1 out 5
Eren
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Eko palypse wrote:
> Thank you, I'm currently investigating importlib and read that
> __builtins__ might be another alternative.
> My ultimate goal would be to have objects available without the need to
> import them, regardless whether used in a script directly or used in an
> imported module.
I
Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/19/19 6:16 AM, Eko palypse wrote:
>>> In all cases, if the optional parts are omitted, the code is executed in
>>> the current scope. ...
>>>
>>>
>>> You can see from it that "globals" is optional.
>>> And that, if "globals" is missing, then
>>> "exec" is executed in th
I’m not the OP, but I want to thank you for that clarification. I had
previously not understood the ramifications of the following in section “7.
Simple statements” in “The Python Language Reference”:
“An augmented assignment expression like x += 1 can be rewritten as x = x + 1
to achieve a si
On 9/19/19 6:52 AM, Eko palypse wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 12:45:35 UTC+2 schrieb Richard Damon:
>> On 9/19/19 6:16 AM, Eko palypse wrote:
In all cases, if the optional parts are omitted, the code is executed in
the current scope. ...
You can see from it th
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 12:56:59 UTC+2 schrieb Peter Otten:
> Eko palypse wrote:
>
> >> Then it should be clear that the name 'test01' is put into globals(), if
> >> load_module() doesn't throw an exception. No sharing or nesting of
> >> namespaces takes place.
> >
> > Thank you too for
Eko palypse wrote:
>> Then it should be clear that the name 'test01' is put into globals(), if
>> load_module() doesn't throw an exception. No sharing or nesting of
>> namespaces takes place.
>
> Thank you too for your answer. Ok, that means that in every case when exec
> imports something it has
Am Donnerstag, 19. September 2019 12:45:35 UTC+2 schrieb Richard Damon:
> On 9/19/19 6:16 AM, Eko palypse wrote:
> >> In all cases, if the optional parts are omitted, the code is executed in
> >> the current scope. ...
> >>
> >>
> >> You can see from it that "globals" is optional.
> >> And that, i
On 9/19/19 6:16 AM, Eko palypse wrote:
>> In all cases, if the optional parts are omitted, the code is executed in the
>> current scope. ...
>>
>>
>> You can see from it that "globals" is optional.
>> And that, if "globals" is missing, then
>> "exec" is executed in the current scope ("f1" in your
> Then it should be clear that the name 'test01' is put into globals(), if
> load_module() doesn't throw an exception. No sharing or nesting of
> namespaces takes place.
Thank you too for your answer. Ok, that means that in every case when exec
imports something it has its own global namespace,
> In all cases, if the optional parts are omitted, the code is executed in the
> current scope. ...
>
>
> You can see from it that "globals" is optional.
> And that, if "globals" is missing, then
> "exec" is executed in the current scope ("f1" in your case).
Thank you for your answer, and that
Eko palypse wrote:
> exec('import test01', globals())
> print('f3 out', x)
>
> # result exception, expected but because f1 didn't throw an exception
> # I'm confused. module test01 has only this two lines
> x += 1
> print('f3 in:', x)
The lines above run in the test01's global namespace, not in
Eko palypse writes:
> Why does f1 work? I've expected an exception as no global dict has been
> provided
> ...
>def f1(...):
> exec("...")
>...
The documentation ("https://docs.python.org/3/library/functions.html#exec";)
tells you:
exec(object[, globals[, locals]])
...
In all cases, if the opt
21 matches
Mail list logo
