Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:53:54 +0000, tinnews wrote: > > >> > But you're not comparing what the OP posted. He was comparing a > >> > global with an object with a single variable inside it. Either would > >> > work with the y = spam(arg) example above. > >> > >> What do you mean by "an object with a single variable inside it"? I > >> don't understand what that is supposed to mean, or why you think it is > >> the same as a global. Do you mean a Singleton? > >> > >> If so, then the answer is simple: using a Singleton argument instead of > >> a global is better, because with a global you are stuck to always using > >> the global (at least until you can re-write the code), but with the > >> Singleton argument, you may be enlightened and *not* use a Singleton. > >> > > But if you stop using the Singleton the code no longer does the same as > > it would with a global does it? > > That's a *good* thing, not a problem. The whole idea is to get away from > the bad behaviour of globals, not find some other way to implement it. > That's *exactly* what I was saying in the bit you snipped! :-)
However it doesn't answer the OP's questionas to why he was advised to replace a global with a class *without* changing the way it was used. -- Chris Green -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
