On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Kasper Peeters <kas...@phi-sci.com> wrote: > I agree that in this example that would be the natural thing to do. > My case is more tricky though: I have something like > > def fun(): > cfun_that_creates_q_in_local_scope() > def fun2(): > cfun_that_wants_to_see_if_q_is_available() > > So the Python side actually doesn't see 'q' directly at all. > > I am willing to elaborate on this if you want (I have fairly good > reasons to do things this way, mostly having to do with historical > constraints of an older C library that I cannot avoid), but it > requires more space. >
To be honest, that's just made it even more weird :) You're creating something in a local namespace that the Python compiler isn't aware of. I wonder, would a 'nonlocal q' declaration inside fun2 affect things any? Otherwise, maybe there's some completely different way to transfer information around. Using locals in this way seems fraught with peril. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
