On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:32:37 -0300, Fabio Zadrozny wrote:
Just as a note, the nonlocal there is not a requirement...
You can just create a mutable object there and change that object (so, you don't need to actually rebind the object in the outer scope).
E.g.: instead of creating a float in the context, create a list with a single float and change the float in the list (maybe the nonlocal would be nicer, but it's certainly still usable)
Yup, that's what I meant by 'some slightly ugly solutions' in this note:
in the thread that spawned those notes. nonlocal allows for this pattern to work without the ugliness of writing code like:
s = [s]
@somedeco def foo(): s += 1
s = s
just to be able to 'change s' inside the foo() scope.
I felt this was both obvious and ugly enough not to warrant too much explicit mention, but I probably should have left it there for the sake of completeness. Thanks for the feedback.
ps - the above shouldn't be taken as either pro or con on the idea of nonlocal in 2.x, just a clarification on why I didn't add the mutable container trick to the original notes.