This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Python nested functions variable scoping
After much trial and error I have eventually discovered that this doesn't work:
def a():
def b():
print x
x=2
x = 1
b()
print x
You get an exception (x not defined before being referenced). So it looks like b can read from x, but if it tries to assign to it, Python changes its interpretation of 'x' to be a local variable, which is now not defined.
Question for my own sick curiosity: is there any way of achieving this? Is there a way of explicitly accessing the scope of the parent function? (x is not global)
The nonlocal statement in Python 3 will do this.
Edit: In Python 2, there's not a simple way to do it. I suggest you use some mutable container object if you need this capability. For example:
def a():
def b():
print d["x"]
d["x"]=2
d = dict(x=1)
b()
print d["x"]
If you absolutely must emulate nonlocal for CPython 2, you can hack it with the Python C API this way:
import ctypes
import inspect
locals_to_fast = ctypes.pythonapi.PyFrame_LocalsToFast
locals_to_fast.restype = None
locals_to_fast.argtypes = [ctypes.py_object, ctypes.c_int]
def set_in_frame(frame, name, value):
frame.f_locals[name] = value
locals_to_fast(frame, 1)
def a():
def b(frame=inspect.currentframe()):
print x
set_in_frame(frame, "x", 2)
x = 1
b()
print x
You could also set the frame local, and instead of calling PyFrame_LocalsToFast(), you could manipulate the bytecode of a so that it uses LOAD_NAME instead of LOAD_FAST. Please don't do either of these things. There is surely a better solution for your use case.
Related
Consider this example:
def A():
b = 1
def B():
# I can access 'b' from here.
print(b)
# But can i modify 'b' here?
B()
A()
For the code in the B function, the variable b is in a non-global, enclosing (outer) scope. How can I modify b from within B? I get an UnboundLocalError if I try it directly, and using global does not fix the problem since b is not global.
Python implements lexical, not dynamic scope - like almost all modern languages. The techniques here will not allow access to the caller's variables - unless the caller also happens to be an enclosing function - because the caller is not in scope. For more on this problem, see How can I access variables from the caller, even if it isn't an enclosing scope (i.e., implement dynamic scoping)?.
On Python 3, use the nonlocal keyword:
The nonlocal statement causes the listed identifiers to refer to previously bound variables in the nearest enclosing scope excluding globals. This is important because the default behavior for binding is to search the local namespace first. The statement allows encapsulated code to rebind variables outside of the local scope besides the global (module) scope.
def foo():
a = 1
def bar():
nonlocal a
a = 2
bar()
print(a) # Output: 2
On Python 2, use a mutable object (like a list, or dict) and mutate the value instead of reassigning a variable:
def foo():
a = []
def bar():
a.append(1)
bar()
bar()
print a
foo()
Outputs:
[1, 1]
You can use an empty class to hold a temporary scope. It's like the mutable but a bit prettier.
def outer_fn():
class FnScope:
b = 5
c = 6
def inner_fn():
FnScope.b += 1
FnScope.c += FnScope.b
inner_fn()
inner_fn()
inner_fn()
This yields the following interactive output:
>>> outer_fn()
8 27
>>> fs = FnScope()
NameError: name 'FnScope' is not defined
I'm a little new to Python, but I've read a bit about this. I believe the best you're going to get is similar to the Java work-around, which is to wrap your outer variable in a list.
def A():
b = [1]
def B():
b[0] = 2
B()
print(b[0])
# The output is '2'
Edit: I guess this was probably true before Python 3. Looks like nonlocal is your answer.
No you cannot, at least in this way.
Because the "set operation" will create a new name in the current scope, which covers the outer one.
I don't know if there is an attribute of a function that gives the __dict__ of the outer space of the function when this outer space isn't the global space == the module, which is the case when the function is a nested function, in Python 3.
But in Python 2, as far as I know, there isn't such an attribute.
So the only possibilities to do what you want is:
1) using a mutable object, as said by others
2)
def A() :
b = 1
print 'b before B() ==', b
def B() :
b = 10
print 'b ==', b
return b
b = B()
print 'b after B() ==', b
A()
result
b before B() == 1
b == 10
b after B() == 10
.
Nota
The solution of Cédric Julien has a drawback:
def A() :
global b # N1
b = 1
print ' b in function B before executing C() :', b
def B() :
global b # N2
print ' b in function B before assigning b = 2 :', b
b = 2
print ' b in function B after assigning b = 2 :', b
B()
print ' b in function A , after execution of B()', b
b = 450
print 'global b , before execution of A() :', b
A()
print 'global b , after execution of A() :', b
result
global b , before execution of A() : 450
b in function B before executing B() : 1
b in function B before assigning b = 2 : 1
b in function B after assigning b = 2 : 2
b in function A , after execution of B() 2
global b , after execution of A() : 2
The global b after execution of A() has been modified and it may be not whished so
That's the case only if there is an object with identifier b in the global namespace
The short answer that will just work automagically
I created a python library for solving this specific problem. It is released under the unlisence so use it however you wish. You can install it with pip install seapie or check out the home page here https://github.com/hirsimaki-markus/SEAPIE
user#pc:home$ pip install seapie
from seapie import Seapie as seapie
def A():
b = 1
def B():
seapie(1, "b=2")
print(b)
B()
A()
outputs
2
the arguments have following meaning:
The first argument is execution scope. 0 would mean local B(), 1 means parent A() and 2 would mean grandparent <module> aka global
The second argument is a string or code object you want to execute in the given scope
You can also call it without arguments for interactive shell inside your program
The long answer
This is more complicated. Seapie works by editing the frames in call stack using CPython api. CPython is the de facto standard so most people don't have to worry about it.
The magic words you are probably most likely interesed in if you are reading this are the following:
frame = sys._getframe(1) # 1 stands for previous frame
parent_locals = frame.f_locals # true dictionary of parent locals
parent_globals = frame.f_globals # true dictionary of parent globals
exec(codeblock, parent_globals, parent_locals)
ctypes.pythonapi.PyFrame_LocalsToFast(ctypes.py_object(frame),ctypes.c_int(1))
# the magic value 1 stands for ability to introduce new variables. 0 for update-only
The latter will force updates to pass into local scope. local scopes are however optimized differently than global scope so intoducing new objects has some problems when you try to call them directly if they are not initialized in any way. I will copy few ways to circumvent these problems from the github page
Assingn, import and define your objects beforehand
Assingn placeholder to your objects beforehand
Reassign object to itself in main program to update symbol table: x = locals()["x"]
Use exec() in main program instead of directly calling to avoid optimization. Instead of calling x do: exec("x")
If you are feeling that using exec() is not something you want to go with you can
emulate the behaviour by updating the the true local dictionary (not the one returned by locals()). I will copy an example from https://faster-cpython.readthedocs.io/mutable.html
import sys
import ctypes
def hack():
# Get the frame object of the caller
frame = sys._getframe(1)
frame.f_locals['x'] = "hack!"
# Force an update of locals array from locals dict
ctypes.pythonapi.PyFrame_LocalsToFast(ctypes.py_object(frame),
ctypes.c_int(0))
def func():
x = 1
hack()
print(x)
func()
Output:
hack!
I don't think you should want to do this. Functions that can alter things in their enclosing context are dangerous, as that context may be written without the knowledge of the function.
You could make it explicit, either by making B a public method and C a private method in a class (the best way probably); or by using a mutable type such as a list and passing it explicitly to C:
def A():
x = [0]
def B(var):
var[0] = 1
B(x)
print x
A()
For anyone looking at this much later on a safer but heavier workaround is. Without a need to pass variables as parameters.
def outer():
a = [1]
def inner(a=a):
a[0] += 1
inner()
return a[0]
You can, but you'll have to use the global statment (not a really good solution as always when using global variables, but it works):
def A():
global b
b = 1
def B():
global b
print( b )
b = 2
B()
A()
This question already has answers here:
Is it possible to initialize the argument of a method with a self.variable value from __init__ in python?
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
I have a class which is declared somewhat like:
class foo:
def __init__(self, a):
self.a = a
I need to pass the member variable object "a" as a default argument for a member function of this class, something like:
def foo(self, x = self.a, y = -1):
if (y == -1):
bar()
else:
some_function(x)
But this is results in error "self is not defined" at self.a, and that is understandable.
Basically, if x is equal to a, y = -1, which will cause "bar" to be executed, and save me from checking the value of x in the other part. This is, of course, a simpler version of the program, but is similar in essence. Checking if x = a will be long, since x is a complex object in itself. Do I have any easy way out of this, like anyway to pass the member object as a default argument, or will I have to write a function to compare the two objects?
This question may come across as dumb, or the code as being badly written, but I am just an inexperienced hobbyist, and I don't know a lot. I am just learning to make programs more complex than "Hello World!" in Python-3.
Default arguments are evaluated when the function is defined, not when it's called. There's no self when you're defining the class and its methods, so you can't use an attribute as a default.
The general idiom when you want the default to be calculated dynamically is that you put the calculation in the function itself, and use None as the default value.
def foo(self, x = None, y = -1):
if (y == -1):
bar()
else:
if x is None:
x = self.a
some_function(x)
This will work as long as None is not a possible normal value of the parameter.
This question already has answers here:
UnboundLocalError trying to use a variable (supposed to be global) that is (re)assigned (even after first use)
(14 answers)
Closed 6 months ago.
def some_func(a):
def access_a():
print(a)
access_a()
outputs the value of a. However, if I want to change a in the nested function like this:
def some_func(a):
def change_a():
a += 1
print(a)
change_a()
it raises UnboundLocalError exception.
I know a is a nonlocal variable, but why can I access it without declaring nonlocal a?
Python scoping rules 101:
a name bound in a function body is considered local unless explicitely declared global (Python 2.x and 3.x) or nonlocal (Python 3.x only). This holds true whereever the assignment happens in the function's body. Trying to read a local variable before it's bound is of course an error.
if a name is read but not bound in a function's body, it will be looked up in enclosing scopes (outer function(s) if any then global scope). NB: functions arguments are de facto local names so they will never be looked up in enclosing scopes.
Note that a += 1 is mainly a shortcut for a = a + 1, so in your example a is local (bound in the function's body and not explicitely declared global or nonlocal), but you try to read it (the rhs of a = a+1) before it's bound.
In Python 3 you can solve this with a nonlocal statement:
>>> def outer(a):
... def change():
... nonlocal a
... a += 1
... print("before : {}".format(a))
... change()
... print ("after : {}".format(a))
...
>>> outer(42)
before : 42
after : 43
Python 2 doesn't have nonlocal so the canonical hack is to wrap the variable in a mutable container (typically a list but any mutable object would do):
>>> def outer(a):
... _a = [a]
... def change():
... _a[0] += 1
... print("before : {}".format(_a[0]))
... change()
... print ("after : {}".format(_a[0]))
...
>>> outer(42)
before : 42
after : 43
which is quite ugly to say the least.
Now while closures are quite handy, they are mostly the functional counterpart of objects : a way to share state between a set of functions while preserving encapsulation of this state, so if you find you have a need for a nonlocal variable perhaps a proper class might be a cleaner solution (though possibly not for your example that doesn't return the inner function but only uses it internally).
i have two solutions for you:
#first one:
# try with list, compound data types dict/list
def some_func(a):
def change_a():
a[0] += 1
print(a[0])
change_a()
some_func([1])
>>> 2
#second one
#reference pointer
from ctypes import *
def some_func_ctypes(a):
def change_a():
a[0] += 1
print a.contents, a[0]
change_a()
i = c_int(1)
pi = pointer(i)
some_func_ctypes(pi)
>>> c_int(2) 2
When you use the += operator, there is an assignment of a new value to a. This turns a to a local in the eyes of the interpreter.
This question already has answers here:
Modify global list inside a function
(5 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was experimenting with this code:
def a():
#global p
p.append(4);
d=9
p=[2,3];
d=8
a();
print p # ----> [2, 3, 4]
print d # ----> 8
The variable d value is not changed as I didn't use the global keyword. But the list p was modified in function even though I didn't use global. Are all lists global by default in functions?
The critical difference is the assignment here. You are fine calling methods on existing global objects, but you can't assign to them without calling them global. In your code, the name d is being reassigned to reference another value. If you changed p with assignment you'd have a similar result
def a():
p = [5, 7] # new local variable, doesn't change global
p.append(9) # doesn't change global p
This makes sense if you think about what happens when python encounters the name for the first time. In the function you've provided, python will see p.append and say "hm, I don't have a local by the name p, let me look in the enclosing scope." It sees the global p and uses that.
In the example I've shown, python will say "there's no explicit global so I assume this is supposed to be a new local variable." and create one.
Names in python are just references. If python followed the behavior you are expecting you'd need a global for every function you called, let me explain:
def a():
p.append(1) # I should need 'global p' to do this
This would mean if you had
def g():
...
def f():
g() # this would also need 'global g', otherwise how does it see g?
def f2():
global g
def g(): # changes the global g function
return 0
I'm wondering if it's possible for a closure in Python to manipulate variables in its namespace. You might call this side-effects because the state is being changed outside the closure itself. I'd like to do something like this
def closureMaker():
x = 0
def closure():
x+=1
print x
return closure
a = closureMaker()
a()
1
a()
2
Obviously what I hope to do is more complicated, but this example illustrates what I'm talking about.
You can't do exactly that in Python 2.x, but you can use a trick to get the same effect: use a mutable object such as a list.
def closureMaker():
x = [0]
def closure():
x[0] += 1
print x[0]
return closure
You can also make x an object with a named attribute, or a dictionary. This can be more readable than a list, especially if you have more than one such variable to modify.
In Python 3.x, you just need to add nonlocal x to your inner function. This causes assignments to x to go to the outer scope.
What limitations have closures in Python compared to language X closures?
nonlocal keyword in Python 2.x
Example:
def closureMaker():
x = 0
def closure():
nonlocal x
x += 1
print(x)
return closure