On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 07:15:12 -0700, Robert Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Flavio wrote:
>> Ok, its not thousands, but more like dozens of variables...
>> I am reading a large form from the web which returns a lot of values.
>> (I am Using cherrypy)
>>
>> I know I could pass these variables arou
On 2005-10-06, Flavio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok,
>
> I got it!
>
> Its vey insecure, and it is not guaranteed to work. Fine.
>
> Now what would you do if you wanted to pass a lot of variables (like a
> thousand) to a function and did not wanted the declare them in the
> function header?
Pass
Flavio wrote:
> I wish all my problems involved just a couple of variables, but
> unfortunately the real interesting problems tend to be complex...
>
> def fun(**kw):
> a = 100
> for k,v in kw.items():
> exec('%s = %s'%(k,v))
> print locals()
>
>
> >>> fun(**{'a':1,'b':2})
> {'a
Flavio wrote:
> Ok, its not thousands, but more like dozens of variables...
> I am reading a large form from the web which returns a lot of values.
> (I am Using cherrypy)
>
> I know I could pass these variables around as:
>
> def some_function(**variables):
> ...
>
> some_function(**variabl
On 6 Oct 2005 07:04:08 -0700, Flavio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I could pass these variables around as:
>
> def some_function(**variables):
> ...
>
> some_function(**variables)
>
> but its a pain in the neck to have to refer to them as
> variables['whatever']...
>
> dont you think?
Er
Ok, its not thousands, but more like dozens of variables...
I am reading a large form from the web which returns a lot of values.
(I am Using cherrypy)
I know I could pass these variables around as:
def some_function(**variables):
...
some_function(**variables)
but its a pain in the neck to
I wish all my problems involved just a couple of variables, but
unfortunately the real interesting problems tend to be complex...
As a last resort this problem could be solved by something like this:
def fun(**kw):
a = 100
for k,v in kw.items():
exec('%s = %s'%(k,v))
print loc
Richard Brodie wrote:
> "Flavio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>>Now what would you do if you wanted to pass a lot of variables (like a
>>thousand) to a function and did not wanted the declare them in the
>>function header?
>
>
> I'd lie down until I felt bet
Flavio wrote:
> Ok,
>
> I got it!
>
> Its vey insecure, and it is not guaranteed to work. Fine.
>
> Now what would you do if you wanted to pass a lot of variables (like a
> thousand) to a function and did not wanted the declare them in the
> function header?
use a dict or list? This is almost c
On 6 Oct 2005 05:55:14 -0700, Flavio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now what would you do if you wanted to pass a lot of variables (like a
> thousand) to a function and did not wanted the declare them in the
> function header?
I'd think twice. If on reflection I decided I really wanted to do it,
I'd
"Flavio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Now what would you do if you wanted to pass a lot of variables (like a
> thousand) to a function and did not wanted the declare them in the
> function header?
I'd lie down until I felt better.
--
http://mail.python.org/mai
Ok,
I got it!
Its vey insecure, and it is not guaranteed to work. Fine.
Now what would you do if you wanted to pass a lot of variables (like a
thousand) to a function and did not wanted the declare them in the
function header?
Flávio
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Jp Calderone enlightened us with:
> If I can call functions in your process space, I've already taken
> over your whole program.
That's true for standalone programs, but not for things like web
applications, RPC calls etc.
Sybren
--
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there shoul
I'm surprised you found any example of 'locals().update' that worked.
Here's one that doesn't work:
def f(y):
locals().update({'x': y})
return x
print f(3) # prints 3?
Jeff
pgpLVe48NBWmT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
http://mail.python.org/mailm
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:47:06 +0200, Sybren Stuvel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Flavio enlightened us with:
>> Can anyone tell me why, if the following code works, I should not do
>> this?
>>
>> def fun(a=1,b=2,**args):
>>
>> print 'locals:',locals()
>> locals().update(args)
>> print
Flavio wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why, if the following code works, I should not do
> this?
>
> #
> # Extending Local namespace
> #
>
> def fun(a=1,b=2,**args):
>
> print 'locals:',locals()
> locals().update(args)
> print locals()
>
> e = {'s':3,'e':4}
> fun(k=10,v=32,**e)
>
Be
"Flavio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone tell me why, if the following code works, I should not do
> this?
because it doesn't work:
#
# Extending Local namespace, now with Local namespace
#
def fun(a=1,b=2,**args):
k="K"
v="V"
print 'locals:',locals()
locals().update(arg
Flavio enlightened us with:
> Can anyone tell me why, if the following code works, I should not do
> this?
>
> def fun(a=1,b=2,**args):
>
> print 'locals:',locals()
> locals().update(args)
> print locals()
Because it's very, very, very insecure. What would happen if someone
found
Flavio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I heard time and again that you are not _supposed_ to update the
> locals dictionary.
>
> Can anyone tell me why, if the following code works, I should not do
> this?
>
> #
> # Extending Local namespace
> #
>
> def fun(a=1,b=2,**args):
>
> print 'locals:',locals(
Hi,
I heard time and again that you are not _supposed_ to update the
locals dictionary.
Can anyone tell me why, if the following code works, I should not do
this?
#
# Extending Local namespace
#
def fun(a=1,b=2,**args):
print 'locals:',locals()
locals().update(args)
pr
20 matches
Mail list logo
