On 2:59 PM, Alan Gauld wrote:
"Francesco Loffredo" <f...@libero.it> wrote
did, Roelof's code would work perfectly, and you could store in a list
all the subsequent changes of a dictionary without calling them with
different names.
You don;'t need dfifferent names. Provided the name creates a
new object inside the loop you can reuse the same name.
Roeloff's problem was that he only created one object, outside
his loop.
lst = []
for n in range(3):
obj = {}
obj[n] = str(n)
lst.append(obj)
Creats a list of 3 distinct dictionaries but only uses one name - obj.
I understand that if .append() stored a copy of the dict in the list,
you will end up with lots of copies and a huge amount of memory used by
your list, but that's exactly what will happen if you make those copies
yourself. But you wouldn't have to devise a way to generate a new name
for the dictionary every time you need to update it.
Python uses references throughout, what you are suggesting would
be a change to the normal way that Python uses names.
HTH,
Probably more importantly, if a language only implemented copies, you
couldn't have references without some different syntax. On the other
hand, with Python, everything's a reference, and if you want a copy, you
make one when you need it. You never do for immutables, and only you
know when you need it for mutable objects.
DaveA
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
