In <mailman.459.1251313091.2854.python-l...@python.org> Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> writes:
>Going back through the archives I found Arnaud's post with this decorator: >def bindfunc(f): > def boundf(*args, **kwargs): > return f(boundf, *args, **kwargs) > return boundf >If you use it on your fact function like so... >class Demo(object): > @bindfunc > def fact(recurse, n) # recurse can be any name you like > if n < 2: > return 1 > else: > return n * recurse(n-1) > _classvar = fact(5) > del fact # no longer needed, and won't work > # once class is created >This should do as you want. Thanks, this is instructive. >As a side note, if you're going to bother asking questions on this list, >you really should try to understand the answers. I think I understand the answers well enough. What I *really* don't understand is why this particular "feature" of Python (i.e. that functions defined within a class statement are forbidden from "seeing" other identifiers defined within the class statement) is generally considered to be perfectly OK. IMO it's a bizarre, inexplicable blindspot (which, among other things, gives rise to a certain worry about what other similar craziness lurks under Python's image of rationality). I have never seen even a half-hearted justification, from a language design point of view, for why this particular "feature" is worth having. Maybe some day the BDFL will deign to give one. kynn -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
