6 replies to this topic

[jwezorek]

In the following code:
[source lang="python"]def count_if( func, seq): count = [0] def count_func( x ): if ( func(x) ): count[0] += 1 for x in seq: count_func(x) return count[0][/source]
why do I have to make count a one element list? (obviously I could implement this without a closure I'm just trying to understand how they work.)

[Telastyn]

Are you sure you have to? I know next to nothing about python, but closures in other languages don't make that requirement.

[jwezorek]

This
[source lang="python"]def count_if( func, seq): count = 0 def count_func( x ): if ( func(x) ): count += 1 for x in seq: count_func(x) return count[/source]
yields the error "UnboundLocalError: local variable 'count' referenced before assignment." When I google that I see people talking about this sort of thing but I haven't seen a clear explanation.

[TheUnbeliever]

I barely know Python, but this StackOverflow thread seems to describe the problem well enough to me. Basically: if you assign to a variable, that variable is created in the local scope, even if there is an identifier with the same name visible from an enclosing scope. Consequently, if you just read from a captured variable, things are dandy. But if you perform an assignment, even after the read, then it will assume that all references in that (enclosed) scope refer to a closure local. Apparently this is remedied (not very nicely, it has to be said) in Python 3.x.

[jwezorek]

I barely know Python, but this StackOverflow thread seems to describe the problem well enough to me. Basically: if you assign to a variable, that variable is created in the local scope, even if there is an identifier with the same name visible from an enclosing scope. Consequently, if you just read from a captured variable, things are dandy. But if you perform an assignment, even after the read, then it will assume that all references in that (enclosed) scope refer to a closure local. Apparently this is remedied (not very nicely, it has to be said) in Python 3.x.

But then why does the list version work? ... Oh, I guess I see, because count[0] += 1 does not tell python to create a one element list if count doesn't exist; if count doesn't exist count[0] += 1 is an error. if a list version of count exists *only* in an enclosing scope and you attempt this assignment python assumes you mean that one?

[TheUnbeliever]

You can't assign to 'count' (and have it refer to the same one) but you can modify the list it identifies. So, whilst you can't assign a new list to (the enclosing scope's) 'count', you can increment the first value in the list. You want to distinguish between the location 'count' and the value stored there.

[jwezorek]

Oh, okay, so if 'count' was any kind of mutable type the enclosed scope can mutate it ... so the enclosed scope basically has access to count's value but doesn't have a reference to count itself.