Where do nested functions live?
Rob Williscroft
rtw at freenet.co.uk
Wed Nov 1 15:55:16 EST 2006
Steve Holden wrote in
news:mailman.1615.1162411287.11739.python-list at python.org in
comp.lang.python:
> Since we have a class that goes out of scope
>> when the function returns, and we don't need more than one instance,
>> why bother to make an instance? Why not use the class object itself?
>>
>> def whatever( new_ms ):
>>
>> class scope ( object ):
>>
>> def inner():
>> scope.mseconds = new_ms - s * 1000
>> m, scope.seconds = divmod (s, 60)
>> h, scope.minutes = divmod (m, 60)
>> d, scope.hours = divmod (h, 24)
>> scope.weeks, scope.days = divmod (d, 7)
>>
> That will need to be
>
> class scope(object): pass
>
> to avoid syntax errors, I suspect. There doesn't seem to be any reason
> why you couldn't use a class instead of an instance. And, of course,
> either might give you problems in the case of a recursive inner
> function.
What problems would it have that a recursive global function
that modified a global object, or a recursive method that
modified its instance doesn't have ?
Rob.
--
http://www.victim-prime.dsl.pipex.com/
More information about the Python-list
mailing list