Can global variable be passed into Python function?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:03:51 +0200, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info>:
> 
>> You can't have it both ways: you cannot claim that switch or case is
>> more readable than a chain of if...elif, and then propose a syntax
>> which is effectively a chain of if...elif while still claiming it is an
>> improvement. It's not. All you've done is introduce an element of
>> implicit magic to the syntax.
> 
> You may be right that Python has too many practical problems for a truly
> fitting switch syntax.

I didn't make that claim. My claim is that your suggested syntax is no 
real improvement over existing syntax.


>> Why (how?) would you want to use *multiple* classes for a single
>> switch?
> 
> Well, I was just given a whole link on the very topic:
> 
>    <URL: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SwitchStatementsSmell>

No no no, you've deleted the context. I'm not talking about making a 
switch statement unnecessary by using polymorphism. I was responding to 
your claim that instead of using a dict, one should:

    [quote]
    At least have the decency of creating inner classes.
    [end quote]

I don't understand this. That's why I asked why and how. I can only 
imagine you mean something like this:

class Outer:
    class InnerOne:
        ...

    class InnerTwo:
        ...

    class InnerThree:
        ...


but I don't see how you get from that to the functionality of a dispatch 
table, or what you're supposed to do with the nested classes.


> Here's a shorter one:
> 
>    <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern>

That's not a way of implementing switching. That's a way of *avoiding* 
switching. Despite the name, it has little to do with state machines.


> Anyway, while implementing states as singleton inner class instances is
> elegant and highly readable, 

O_o

That's terribly, terribly inelegant. Why not use the class objects 
themselves, instead of instantiating them? Even then, you haven't escaped 
the use of a dict dispatch table, or a chain of if...elif. You've just 
defined the symbols you use.


> the technique suffers in one significant
> respect: it can be very slow. 

Particularly if you program Java in Python.



> Often a state machine has numerous states
> but the typical execution path only visits a few of them. However, the
> pattern calls for declaring classes (or instances) for all states in the
> state machine constructor. Switch statements make it possible to avoid
> this creation overhead.

How do you avoid creating the classes or instances? If they haven't been 
created, how can the compiler reference them?



>> Dict dispatch tables are elegant, attractive and efficient if you are
>> using pre-existing functions or functions you can create using lambda:
> 
> I beg to differ. The dict dispatch tables are very hard to read. The
> fully blown-out if-else chain beats it in elegance hands down.

Only if you lay out the dict badly. Poorly written code is ugly and hard 
to read no matter what you do.



-- 
Steven