[Python-ideas] Allow lambda decorators
pyideas at rebertia.com
Mon Feb 9 07:02:49 CET 2009
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote:
> Maybe I've been corrupted by the functional mindset (I hope not!), but I
> can follow this. As Carl says, the key is to focus on the scoping
> def func_maker():
> fs = 
> for i in range(10):
> def f():
> return i
> return fs
> This creates a list of function objects, but the way scoping works in
> Python, every single function object returns 9 because that's the final
> value of ``i`` in func_maker(). Living with this wart is an option;
> changing Python's scoping rules to fix the wart is probably not worth
> considering. Carl is suggesting something in-between, allowing the use
> of lambda combined with decorator syntax to create an intermediate scope
> that hides func_maker()'s ``i`` from f().
> I think that's ugly, but it probably is about the best we can do -- the
> other options are uglier.
This will likely get shot down in 5 minutes somehow, but I just want
to put it forward since I personally didn't find it ugly: Has a
declaration been considered (like with `nonlocal`)? Seems a relatively
elegant solution to this problem, imho. I know it was mentioned in a
thread once (with the keyword as "instantize" or "immediatize" or
something similar), but I've been unable to locate it (my Google-chi
must not be flowing today).
The basic idea was (using the keyword "bind" for the sake of argument):
fs = 
for i in range(10):
bind i #this declaration tells Python to grab the value of
i as it is *right now* at definition-time
The `bind` declaration would effectively tell Python to apply an
internal version of the `lambda x=x:` trick/hack/kludge automatically,
thus solving the scoping problem.
I now expect someone will point me to the thread I couldn't find
and/or poke several gaping holes in this idea.
Follow the path of the Iguana...
More information about the Python-ideas