Static variables [was Re: syntax difference]

[Steven D'Aprano]

From: Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info>

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 are:

(1) Local variables, and hence FAST;

(2) fully encapsulated inside the function.

Using f.x fails on both accounts:

- it requires a global name lookup for "f" (hence slow);

- followed by an attribute lookup for "x" (hence even slower);

- f.x is not encapsulated inside the function. It requires initialisation
outside the function. The attribute f.x is easily visible to the caller.

(Technically, so probably would static variables, but only by inspecting the
function's internals. People know they're on thin-ice if they mess with them.
And if we really needed to, we could protect the static storage inside the
function from writing, if not reading, as we do with closures. f.x looks like
an ordinary attribute.)

I have used the f.x trick before, for things where speed was not critical, but
I've never really loved the idea, and it certainly cannot be used as a
replacement of the def func(arg, len=len, int=int) optimization trick.


--
Steven D'Aprano
"Ever since I learned about confirmation bias, I've been seeing it everywhere."
 -- Jon Ronson

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)