On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:29:57 -0500, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Okay, whatever 'yuckiness' is here is imposed on us by the threading > > package. I think what is confusing you guys is the reprocessing of > > output, since Satish likes it cleaned up. The 'else' branch where > > Barry added code is actually the success branch since thread.isAlive() > > is false, meaning it completed. We reprocess the output and > > return. The status and error have already been set during the run() > > call. Its this call that makes us us globals for these variables. Its > > the Python equiv of a closure. > > You can close over the present scope without using globals. As a crude > example, > > def foo(): x[:] = [4,5,6] # x = [4,5,6] would assign to a new local > x = [1,2] > foo() # same effect if you create and run a thread > here > print x # [4,5,6] >
That is what I thought, but it did not work until I made them global. > In the present context, this function is not returned so it is just > downward funargs and can be done without proper closures. If you use > globals, you don't need anything resembling a closure, and indeed, the > run() function in script.py bears no such resemblance. There are > several ways to make the 'x' within 'foo' come from the enclosing scope > instead of the default which would make it a new local (I find Python > scoping rules remarkably surprising). > > In conclusion, is there a reason why we are currently using globals > *instead* of a closure? Try it without globals. It will not assign them. Not sure why. Matt > > Jed -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100314/403a3947/attachment.html>
