On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:20 PM Ronald Oussoren via Python-ideas email@example.com wrote:
On 27 May 2021, at 09:56, Shreyan Avigyan firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Static should behave much like Python's for loop variables.
I have no idea what this means.
For this particular question/proposal: “static” variables in functions in C like languages are basically hidden global variables, and global variables are generally a bad idea.
Hmm, I'd distinguish a couple of things here. Global constants are most certainly not a problem, and objects that last the entire run of the program are not a problem either. The usual problem with "global variables" is that they become hidden state, action-at-a-distance. You can change the global in one function and it notably affects some other function. Part of the point of statics is that they are *not* global; they might live for the entire run of the program, but they can't be changed by any other function, so there's no AaaD that will mess with your expectations.
In Python you can get the same result with a global variable and the use of the “global” keyword in a function (or cooperating set of functions) when you want to update the global variable from that function.
That's globals, with all the risks thereof.
Closures or instances of classes with an ``__call__`` method can be used as well and can hide state (with the “consulting adults” caveat, the state is hidden, not inaccessible).
This would be the easiest way to manage it. But both of them provide a way to have multiple independent, yet equivalent, states. If that's what you want, great! But it can also be an unnecessary level of confusion ("why would I ever make a second one of these? Why is there a factory function for something that I'll only ever need one of?"), where static variables wouldn't do that.
There is one namespace that would very aptly handle this kind of thing: the function object itself.
... count.cur += 1 ... return count.cur ...
count.cur = 0 count()
As long as you can reference your own function reliably, this will work. There may be room for a keyword like this_function, but for the most part, it's not necessary, and you can happily work with the function by its name. It's a little clunkier than being able to say "static cur = 0;" to initialize it (the initializer has to go *after* the function, which feels backwards), but the functionality is all there.