kj wrote:
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
I think I got your point.
I guess many people may not be receptive to your question, cause guess
what, we're all python fans :o)
in foo.py:
a = 5
b = a # works fine
class A:
c = 5
d = c # broken
d = A.c # broken either
def foo(self):
e = 5
f = e #works fine
We should all acknowledge that any newcomer to python will not expect
such behavior. There are plenty of good answers to that thread
explaining why the fact that classes are not scopes is much better.
Still this design fails at one point : insight.
It may be solved by creating the class upon the "class" statement. If
the class A object is created, then c is added as a property of that
object, there's no problem accession one object property with A.c.
JM
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
