On 06/29/2019 05:42 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
> That was the other possibility I was thinking about. And that would be
> maybe better. Because I now do things like:
> global_dict['messages']['created'].format(len(filepathArr))
>
> much better would be:
> instance.created(len(filepathArr))
On 29/06/19 11:42 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
DL Neil writes:
On 29/06/19 1:44 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
I have written a GUI program where I have quit a few global variables.
I did not like this, so I now use one global dict. Something like:
global global_dict
...
Is that an acceptab
DL Neil writes:
> On 29/06/19 1:44 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> I have written a GUI program where I have quit a few global variables.
>> I did not like this, so I now use one global dict. Something like:
>> global global_dict
> ...
>
>> Is that an acceptable way to do this?
>
>
> If it wor
On 29/06/19 1:44 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
I have written a GUI program where I have quit a few global variables.
I did not like this, so I now use one global dict. Something like:
global global_dict
...
Is that an acceptable way to do this?
If it works, isn't that the largest part of
I have written a GUI program where I have quit a few global variables.
I did not like this, so I now use one global dict. Something like:
global global_dict
canceled_report = 'Genereren rapportage gecanceled.'
created_report = 'Rapportage voor {} bestanden is gemaakt.'
e
On 6/28/19 6:44 AM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
I have written a GUI program where I have quit a few global variables.
I did not like this, so I now use one global dict. Something like:
[snip]
global_dict = {
'messages': messages,
'progress': progress,
'windo
