To: Ben Bacarisse
From: "Bart"
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 01:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart writes:
>> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a
>> neat bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create
>> a new function instances
To: Bart
From: "Gregory Ewing"
To: Bart
From: Gregory Ewing
Bart wrote:
> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a neat
> bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create a new
> function instances for each of those functions, even if they are not
To: Bart
From: "Ben Bacarisse"
To: Bart
From: Ben Bacarisse
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart writes:
>>
>>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>>
> (At what point would that happen anyway; if
To: Bart
From: "Ben Bacarisse"
To: Bart
From: Ben Bacarisse
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>
>>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>
>> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the functi
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: "Bart"
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart writes:
>
>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>
(At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>>
>>> NO
To: Chris Angelico
From: "Bart"
To: Chris Angelico
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
> m
To: Stefan Ram
From: "Bart"
To: Stefan Ram
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 14:32, Stefan Ram wrote:
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> def f():
>> def g():
>> g.x += 1
>> return g.x
>> g.x = 0
>> return g
>
>Or, "for all g to share the same x":
>
>
To: Stefan Ram
From: "Stefan Ram"
To: Stefan Ram
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>def f():
>def g():
>g.x += 1
>return g.x
>g.x = 0
>return g
Or, "for all g to share the same x":
main.py
def f():
d
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: "Stefan Ram"
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>def f():
>static x = 0
>def g():
>x += 1
>return x
>return g
What one can do today:
main.py
def g():
g.x += 1
return g.x
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: "Bart"
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 04:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
>> a static variable is basically the same thi
From: "Chris Angelico"
From: Chris Angelico
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
>> a static variable is basically the same thing as a glo
From: "Chris Angelico"
From: Chris Angelico
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> For getting rid of the "len=len" trick, though, I would REALLY like to
> transform those into LOAD_CONST. That'd be a fun bytecode hack all on
> its own. In fact, I'm gonna have a shot at that.
From: "Steven D'Aprano"
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
> a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
> except that its name is scoped to the functi
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:22:56 +, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2018-06-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Building functions is cheap. Cheap is not free.
>>
>> Inner functions that aren't exposed to the outside cannot be tested in
>> isolation, you can't access them through help() interactively. Giv
Grant Edwards :
> IOW, you use a local function instead of a global one for the exact
> same reasons you use local "variables" instead of global ones.
>
> In Python, functions are first class objects. Binding a name to a
> function is no different than binding it to an integer, list, string,
> or
On 2018-06-24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Building functions is cheap. Cheap is not free.
>
> Inner functions that aren't exposed to the outside cannot be tested
> in isolation, you can't access them through help()
> interactively. Given the choice between:
[...]
> so not expensive, but not free
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: Bart
On 24/06/2018 01:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart writes:
>> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a
>> neat bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create
>> a new function instances for each of those functions, even
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:23:12 +0100, Bart wrote:
> On 24/06/2018 01:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart writes:
>
>>> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a
>>> neat bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create
>>> a new functi
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:29:51 +0100, MRAB wrote:
> You can already do something similar like this:
>
> def f():
> f.x += 1
> return f.x
> f.x = 0
>
> [snip]
You can, but only as an illustration, not as a serious implementation.
The whole point of static local v
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:44:00 +0100, Bart wrote:
> Since these references are created via the return g statement here:
>
> def f():
> def g():
>
> return g
>
> (say to create function references i and j like this:
>
> i = f()
>
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 00:37:36 +0100, Bart wrote:
> Do you mean that if the same 'def' block is re-executed, it will create
> a different instance of the function? (Same byte-code, but a different
> set of everything else the function uses.)
That's not as slow as you think i
To: Bart
From: Gregory Ewing
Bart wrote:
> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a neat
> bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create a new
> function instances for each of those functions, even if they are not used.)
Fortunately, function obje
From: Chris Angelico
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Bart wrote:
> On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>> Bart writes:
>>
>>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>>
> (At what point would that happen anyway; if y
To: Bart
From: Ben Bacarisse
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart writes:
>>
>>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>>
> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>>>
NONE of your
To: Bart
From: Ben Bacarisse
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>
>>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>
>> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
>> making REFERENC
To: Ben Bacarisse
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Bart writes:
>
>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>
(At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>>
>>> NONE of your examples are taking copi
To: Chris Angelico
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
> making REFERENCES to the same functio
From: Chris Angelico
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
> This is an example of a simple concept getting so out of hand that it will
> either never be implemented, or the resulting implementation becomes
> impractical to use.
>
> This is what we're trying to do:
>
> def nextx():
>
From: MRAB
On 2018-06-23 05:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
>>> a static variable is basically the sam
To: Stefan Ram
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 14:32, Stefan Ram wrote:
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> def f():
>> def g():
>> g.x += 1
>> return g.x
>> g.x = 0
>> return g
>
>Or, "for all g to share the same x":
>
>main.py
>
> def f():
> def
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
Steven D'Aprano writes:
>def f():
>static x = 0
>def g():
>x += 1
>return x
>return g
What one can do today:
main.py
def g():
g.x += 1
return g.x
g.x = 0
print( g() )
print( g() )
print( g
98ecd8c1-13b7-8317-8177-6a3592171...@kellett.im>
Subject: Re: Static variables [was Re: syntax difference]
References: <72edc16a-69e0-41a2-bec3-290083f6e...@googlegroups.com>
<01092eb6-172f-5ee0-91fb-4e3e1df99...@gmail.com>
<6eUVC.491716$Qg7.378011@fx08.am4>
To: Stefan Ram
From: r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>def f():
>def g():
>g.x += 1
>return g.x
>g.x = 0
>return g
Or, "for all g to share the same x":
main.py
def f():
def g():
f.x += 1
retur
To: Steven D'Aprano
From: Bart
On 23/06/2018 04:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
>> a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
>> except th
From: Chris Angelico
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
>> a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
>> except t
From: Steven D'Aprano
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
> a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
> except that its name is scoped to the function. There is only one of i
From: Chris Angelico
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> For getting rid of the "len=len" trick, though, I would REALLY like to
> transform those into LOAD_CONST. That'd be a fun bytecode hack all on
> its own. In fact, I'm gonna have a shot at that. An "early bind these
> n
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:23:12 +0100, Bart wrote:
> On 24/06/2018 01:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart writes:
>
>>> Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a
>>> neat bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create
>>> a new function instances for each o
On 24/06/2018 01:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Bart writes:
Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a
neat bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create
a new function instances for each of those functions, even if they are
not used.)
I am surprised
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 18:29:51 +0100, MRAB wrote:
> You can already do something similar like this:
>
> def f():
> f.x += 1
> return f.x
> f.x = 0
>
> [snip]
You can, but only as an illustration, not as a serious implementation.
The whole point of static local variables is that they
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 00:37:36 +0100, Bart wrote:
> Do you mean that if the same 'def' block is re-executed, it will create
> a different instance of the function? (Same byte-code, but a different
> set of everything else the function uses.)
That's not as slow as you think it is. Everything that ca
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018 21:44:00 +0100, Bart wrote:
> Since these references are created via the return g statement here:
>
> def f():
> def g():
>
> return g
>
> (say to create function references i and j like this:
>
> i = f()
> j = f()
> )
>
>
Bart wrote:
Wow. (Just think of all the times you write a function containing a neat
bunch of local functions, every time it's called it has to create a new
function instances for each of those functions, even if they are not used.)
Fortunately, function objects are small and cheap, essentiall
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Bart writes:
>>
>>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>>
> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>>>
NONE of your examples are taking copies of th
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Bart wrote:
> On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>
>> Bart writes:
>>
>>> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>>>
>>>
> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 23/06/2018 23:25, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
Bart writes:
On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
(At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
making REFERENC
Bart writes:
> On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
>
>>> (At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
>
>> NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
>> making REFERENCES to the same function. That is
On 23/06/2018 21:13, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
(At what point would that happen anyway; if you do this:
NONE of your examples are taking copies of the function. They all are
making REFERENCES to the same function. That is all.
This is about your
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 10:41 PM, Bart wrote:
> This is an example of a simple concept getting so out of hand that it will
> either never be implemented, or the resulting implementation becomes
> impractical to use.
>
> This is what we're trying to do:
>
> def nextx():
> static x = 0
>
On 2018-06-23 05:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variab
On 23/06/2018 14:32, Stefan Ram wrote:
r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
def f():
def g():
g.x += 1
return g.x
g.x = 0
return g
Or, "for all g to share the same x":
main.py
def f():
def g():
f.x += 1
return f.x
retu
On 2018-06-23 06:21, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Let's start finding all the edge cases that don't work, so I can work
> on fixing them :)
Very long functions (or, more specifically, functions with a very large
number of consts) will likely prove annoying.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 23/06/2018 04:51, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
except that its name is scoped to the function. There
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> For getting rid of the "len=len" trick, though, I would REALLY like to
> transform those into LOAD_CONST. That'd be a fun bytecode hack all on
> its own. In fact, I'm gonna have a shot at that. An "early bind these
> names" decorator.
Well,
On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
>> a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
>> except that its name is scoped
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:18:19 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Ah. Yeah, that would be a plausible feature to add to Python. But in C,
> a static variable is basically the same thing as a global variable,
> except that its name is scoped to the function. There is only one of it.
> What happens in Pyt
56 matches
Mail list logo
