Any way to modify locals dictionary?
locals
is a built in function that returns a dictionary of local values. The documentation says:
Warning
The contents of this dictionary should
not be modified; changes may not
affect the values of local variables
used by the interpreter.
Unfortunately, exec has the same problem in Python 3.0. Is there any way round this?
Use Case
Consider:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
depends stores the strings provided in its arguments in a list test.dependences
. These strings are keys in a dictionary d
. I would like to be able to able to write put_into_locals
so that we could pull the values out of d
and put them into the locals. Is this possible?
python local-variables
add a comment |
locals
is a built in function that returns a dictionary of local values. The documentation says:
Warning
The contents of this dictionary should
not be modified; changes may not
affect the values of local variables
used by the interpreter.
Unfortunately, exec has the same problem in Python 3.0. Is there any way round this?
Use Case
Consider:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
depends stores the strings provided in its arguments in a list test.dependences
. These strings are keys in a dictionary d
. I would like to be able to able to write put_into_locals
so that we could pull the values out of d
and put them into the locals. Is this possible?
python local-variables
Link to the relevant documentation: docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#locals
– Ceasar Bautista
Dec 5 '14 at 19:53
why doestest. dependencies = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]
work and then decorate the assignment I wrote above to yourtest()
function?
– Charlie Parker
Jun 22 '17 at 22:34
did you manage to update/modify locals or no?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:20
is there a way to make it work for python 3 or more?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:23
add a comment |
locals
is a built in function that returns a dictionary of local values. The documentation says:
Warning
The contents of this dictionary should
not be modified; changes may not
affect the values of local variables
used by the interpreter.
Unfortunately, exec has the same problem in Python 3.0. Is there any way round this?
Use Case
Consider:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
depends stores the strings provided in its arguments in a list test.dependences
. These strings are keys in a dictionary d
. I would like to be able to able to write put_into_locals
so that we could pull the values out of d
and put them into the locals. Is this possible?
python local-variables
locals
is a built in function that returns a dictionary of local values. The documentation says:
Warning
The contents of this dictionary should
not be modified; changes may not
affect the values of local variables
used by the interpreter.
Unfortunately, exec has the same problem in Python 3.0. Is there any way round this?
Use Case
Consider:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
depends stores the strings provided in its arguments in a list test.dependences
. These strings are keys in a dictionary d
. I would like to be able to able to write put_into_locals
so that we could pull the values out of d
and put them into the locals. Is this possible?
python local-variables
python local-variables
edited Jan 2 at 1:08
martineau
68.5k1090183
68.5k1090183
asked Sep 20 '09 at 4:03
CasebashCasebash
49k72209318
49k72209318
Link to the relevant documentation: docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#locals
– Ceasar Bautista
Dec 5 '14 at 19:53
why doestest. dependencies = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]
work and then decorate the assignment I wrote above to yourtest()
function?
– Charlie Parker
Jun 22 '17 at 22:34
did you manage to update/modify locals or no?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:20
is there a way to make it work for python 3 or more?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:23
add a comment |
Link to the relevant documentation: docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#locals
– Ceasar Bautista
Dec 5 '14 at 19:53
why doestest. dependencies = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]
work and then decorate the assignment I wrote above to yourtest()
function?
– Charlie Parker
Jun 22 '17 at 22:34
did you manage to update/modify locals or no?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:20
is there a way to make it work for python 3 or more?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:23
Link to the relevant documentation: docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#locals
– Ceasar Bautista
Dec 5 '14 at 19:53
Link to the relevant documentation: docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#locals
– Ceasar Bautista
Dec 5 '14 at 19:53
why does
test. dependencies = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]
work and then decorate the assignment I wrote above to your test()
function?– Charlie Parker
Jun 22 '17 at 22:34
why does
test. dependencies = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]
work and then decorate the assignment I wrote above to your test()
function?– Charlie Parker
Jun 22 '17 at 22:34
did you manage to update/modify locals or no?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:20
did you manage to update/modify locals or no?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:20
is there a way to make it work for python 3 or more?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:23
is there a way to make it work for python 3 or more?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:23
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
I just tested exec and it works in Python 2.6.2
>>> def test():
... exec "a = 5"
... print a
...
>>> test()
5
If you are using Python 3.x, it does not work anymore because locals are optimized as an array at runtime, instead of using a dictionary.
When Python detects the "exec statement", it will force Python to switch local storage from array to dictionary. However since "exec" is a function in Python 3.x, the compiler cannot make this distinction since the user could have done something like "exec = 123".
http://bugs.python.org/issue4831
To modify the locals of a function on
the fly is not possible without
several consequences: normally,
function locals are not stored in a
dictionary, but an array, whose
indices are determined at compile time
from the known locales. This collides
at least with new locals added by
exec. The old exec statement
circumvented this, because the
compiler knew that if an exec without
globals/locals args occurred in a
function, that namespace would be
"unoptimized", i.e. not using the
locals array. Since exec() is now a
normal function, the compiler does not
know what "exec" may be bound to, and
therefore can not treat is specially.
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
1
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
|
show 3 more comments
The local variables are modified by assignment statements.
If you have dictionary keys which are strings, please don't also make them local variables -- just use them as dictionary keys.
If you absolutely must have local variables do this.
def aFunction( a, b, c, d, e, f ):
# use a, b, c, d, e and f as local variables
aFunction( **someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f )
That will populate some local variables from your dictionary without doing anything magical.
5
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed byaFunction()
), which makes the current definition ofaFunction()
break. A useful generalization is:aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
4
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signaturedef aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
whensomeDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out,def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
3
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) withaFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
2
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than(n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for somen
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
3
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
|
show 4 more comments
This isn't possible. I think this is to allow for performance optimizations later on. Python bytecode references locals by index, not by name; if locals() was required to be writable, it could prevent interpreters from implementing some optimizations, or make them more difficult.
I'm fairly certain you're not going to find any core API that guarantees you can edit locals like this, because if that API could do it, locals() wouldn't have this restriction either.
Don't forget that all locals must exist at compile-time; if you reference a name that isn't bound to a local at compile-time, the compiler assumes it's a global. You can't "create" locals after compilation.
See this question for one possible solution, but it's a serious hack and you really don't want to do that.
Note that there's a basic problem with your example code:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
"test.dependencies"
isn't referring to "f.dependencies" where f is the current function; it's referencing the actual global value "test". That means if you use more than one decorator:
@memoize
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
it'll no longer work, since "test" is memoize's wrapped function, not depends's. Python really needs a way to refer to "the currently-executing function" (and class).
add a comment |
I would store it in a variable:
refs = locals()
def set_pets():
global refs
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
refs['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
set_pets()
refs['pet_05']='bird'
print(pet_00, pet_02, pet_04, pet_01, pet_03, pet_05 )
>> dog fish monkey cat fox bird
And if you want to test your dict before putting it in locals():
def set_pets():
global refs
sandbox = {}
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
sandbox['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
# Test sandboxed dict here
refs.update( sandbox )
Python 3.6.1 on MacOS Sierra
add a comment |
I'm not sure if it is subject to the same restrictions, but you can get a direct reference to the current frame (and from there, the local variables dictionary) through the inspect module:
>>> import inspect
>>> inspect.currentframe().f_locals['foo'] = 'bar'
>>> dir()
['__builtins__', '__doc__', '__name__', '__package__', 'foo', 'inspect']
>>> foo
'bar'
7
This is exactly the same as locals();inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.
– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
1
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f1450275%2fany-way-to-modify-locals-dictionary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I just tested exec and it works in Python 2.6.2
>>> def test():
... exec "a = 5"
... print a
...
>>> test()
5
If you are using Python 3.x, it does not work anymore because locals are optimized as an array at runtime, instead of using a dictionary.
When Python detects the "exec statement", it will force Python to switch local storage from array to dictionary. However since "exec" is a function in Python 3.x, the compiler cannot make this distinction since the user could have done something like "exec = 123".
http://bugs.python.org/issue4831
To modify the locals of a function on
the fly is not possible without
several consequences: normally,
function locals are not stored in a
dictionary, but an array, whose
indices are determined at compile time
from the known locales. This collides
at least with new locals added by
exec. The old exec statement
circumvented this, because the
compiler knew that if an exec without
globals/locals args occurred in a
function, that namespace would be
"unoptimized", i.e. not using the
locals array. Since exec() is now a
normal function, the compiler does not
know what "exec" may be bound to, and
therefore can not treat is specially.
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
1
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
|
show 3 more comments
I just tested exec and it works in Python 2.6.2
>>> def test():
... exec "a = 5"
... print a
...
>>> test()
5
If you are using Python 3.x, it does not work anymore because locals are optimized as an array at runtime, instead of using a dictionary.
When Python detects the "exec statement", it will force Python to switch local storage from array to dictionary. However since "exec" is a function in Python 3.x, the compiler cannot make this distinction since the user could have done something like "exec = 123".
http://bugs.python.org/issue4831
To modify the locals of a function on
the fly is not possible without
several consequences: normally,
function locals are not stored in a
dictionary, but an array, whose
indices are determined at compile time
from the known locales. This collides
at least with new locals added by
exec. The old exec statement
circumvented this, because the
compiler knew that if an exec without
globals/locals args occurred in a
function, that namespace would be
"unoptimized", i.e. not using the
locals array. Since exec() is now a
normal function, the compiler does not
know what "exec" may be bound to, and
therefore can not treat is specially.
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
1
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
|
show 3 more comments
I just tested exec and it works in Python 2.6.2
>>> def test():
... exec "a = 5"
... print a
...
>>> test()
5
If you are using Python 3.x, it does not work anymore because locals are optimized as an array at runtime, instead of using a dictionary.
When Python detects the "exec statement", it will force Python to switch local storage from array to dictionary. However since "exec" is a function in Python 3.x, the compiler cannot make this distinction since the user could have done something like "exec = 123".
http://bugs.python.org/issue4831
To modify the locals of a function on
the fly is not possible without
several consequences: normally,
function locals are not stored in a
dictionary, but an array, whose
indices are determined at compile time
from the known locales. This collides
at least with new locals added by
exec. The old exec statement
circumvented this, because the
compiler knew that if an exec without
globals/locals args occurred in a
function, that namespace would be
"unoptimized", i.e. not using the
locals array. Since exec() is now a
normal function, the compiler does not
know what "exec" may be bound to, and
therefore can not treat is specially.
I just tested exec and it works in Python 2.6.2
>>> def test():
... exec "a = 5"
... print a
...
>>> test()
5
If you are using Python 3.x, it does not work anymore because locals are optimized as an array at runtime, instead of using a dictionary.
When Python detects the "exec statement", it will force Python to switch local storage from array to dictionary. However since "exec" is a function in Python 3.x, the compiler cannot make this distinction since the user could have done something like "exec = 123".
http://bugs.python.org/issue4831
To modify the locals of a function on
the fly is not possible without
several consequences: normally,
function locals are not stored in a
dictionary, but an array, whose
indices are determined at compile time
from the known locales. This collides
at least with new locals added by
exec. The old exec statement
circumvented this, because the
compiler knew that if an exec without
globals/locals args occurred in a
function, that namespace would be
"unoptimized", i.e. not using the
locals array. Since exec() is now a
normal function, the compiler does not
know what "exec" may be bound to, and
therefore can not treat is specially.
answered Sep 20 '09 at 5:09
UnknownUnknown
34.7k22120169
34.7k22120169
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
1
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
|
show 3 more comments
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
1
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
I think it is pretty conclusive that it is just not possible
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 5:35
1
1
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
@Casebash, it probably is possible, it just requires byte code hacks or Python 2.x
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 5:49
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
Okay, I'll leave this question unresolved for now
– Casebash
Sep 20 '09 at 6:37
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
@Casebash: you might not want to hold your breath. Python byte codes are not very well documented.
– Unknown
Sep 20 '09 at 18:07
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
I'll probably look at it myself some day. ATM, I really am not going to get enough utility out of it to justify the effort
– Casebash
Sep 21 '09 at 0:55
|
show 3 more comments
The local variables are modified by assignment statements.
If you have dictionary keys which are strings, please don't also make them local variables -- just use them as dictionary keys.
If you absolutely must have local variables do this.
def aFunction( a, b, c, d, e, f ):
# use a, b, c, d, e and f as local variables
aFunction( **someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f )
That will populate some local variables from your dictionary without doing anything magical.
5
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed byaFunction()
), which makes the current definition ofaFunction()
break. A useful generalization is:aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
4
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signaturedef aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
whensomeDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out,def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
3
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) withaFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
2
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than(n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for somen
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
3
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
|
show 4 more comments
The local variables are modified by assignment statements.
If you have dictionary keys which are strings, please don't also make them local variables -- just use them as dictionary keys.
If you absolutely must have local variables do this.
def aFunction( a, b, c, d, e, f ):
# use a, b, c, d, e and f as local variables
aFunction( **someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f )
That will populate some local variables from your dictionary without doing anything magical.
5
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed byaFunction()
), which makes the current definition ofaFunction()
break. A useful generalization is:aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
4
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signaturedef aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
whensomeDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out,def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
3
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) withaFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
2
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than(n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for somen
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
3
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
|
show 4 more comments
The local variables are modified by assignment statements.
If you have dictionary keys which are strings, please don't also make them local variables -- just use them as dictionary keys.
If you absolutely must have local variables do this.
def aFunction( a, b, c, d, e, f ):
# use a, b, c, d, e and f as local variables
aFunction( **someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f )
That will populate some local variables from your dictionary without doing anything magical.
The local variables are modified by assignment statements.
If you have dictionary keys which are strings, please don't also make them local variables -- just use them as dictionary keys.
If you absolutely must have local variables do this.
def aFunction( a, b, c, d, e, f ):
# use a, b, c, d, e and f as local variables
aFunction( **someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f )
That will populate some local variables from your dictionary without doing anything magical.
answered Sep 20 '09 at 11:50
S.LottS.Lott
319k67441717
319k67441717
5
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed byaFunction()
), which makes the current definition ofaFunction()
break. A useful generalization is:aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
4
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signaturedef aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
whensomeDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out,def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
3
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) withaFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
2
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than(n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for somen
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
3
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
|
show 4 more comments
5
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed byaFunction()
), which makes the current definition ofaFunction()
break. A useful generalization is:aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
4
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signaturedef aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
whensomeDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out,def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
3
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) withaFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.
– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
2
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than(n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for somen
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
3
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
5
5
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed by
aFunction()
), which makes the current definition of aFunction()
break. A useful generalization is: aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
This is an interesting idea. However, there are many applications in which the dictionary actually contains many other variables (that are not needed by
aFunction()
), which makes the current definition of aFunction()
break. A useful generalization is: aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
.– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 10:40
4
4
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signature
def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
when someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out, def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
@S. Lott: Let me rephrase my point: what breaks is having the signature
def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f)
when someDictWithKeys_a_b_c_d_e_f
contains more keys than these few variables, which is a typical situation when performing complex scientific calculations (the whole calculation uses more variables than most of the functions it calls). As I pointed out, def aFunction(a, b, c, d, e, f, **kwargs)
is a convenient way of addressing this situation.– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 18 '10 at 18:01
3
3
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) with
aFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
@S. Lott: just run the code of your answer (which I upvoted) with
aFunction(**{'a': 0, 'b': 1, 'c': 2, 'd': 3, 'e': 4, 'f': 5, 'g': 6})
and this will precisely show why my remark can be useful to StackOverflow readers. In real-life scientific calculations, dictionaries typically hold more variables than what is sent individually to each function called.– Eric O Lebigot
Jul 20 '10 at 8:24
2
2
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like
(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than (n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for some n
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
@S. Lott: The whole purpose of this is to get more convenient access to dict or object members. The idea is that some formula like
(a**2+b)*exp(c*d/e)
is easier to read than (n.a**2+n.b)*exp(n.c*n.d/n.e)
for some n
(perhaps just wrapping the dict containing the relevant variables). As for "bad design", suppose you have some parameters that determine the shape of a collection of functions. For example, these could be material parameters describing the equation of state and other properties for a gas.– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
3
3
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
Each function uses a subset of the parameters and you don't want to write a bunch of boilerplate to extract only the part that is really needed. You don't want to modify the callers when the function needs more parameters and you don't want to modify the inner functions when a different part of the model requires a new parameter to be introduced.
– Jed
May 30 '11 at 17:39
|
show 4 more comments
This isn't possible. I think this is to allow for performance optimizations later on. Python bytecode references locals by index, not by name; if locals() was required to be writable, it could prevent interpreters from implementing some optimizations, or make them more difficult.
I'm fairly certain you're not going to find any core API that guarantees you can edit locals like this, because if that API could do it, locals() wouldn't have this restriction either.
Don't forget that all locals must exist at compile-time; if you reference a name that isn't bound to a local at compile-time, the compiler assumes it's a global. You can't "create" locals after compilation.
See this question for one possible solution, but it's a serious hack and you really don't want to do that.
Note that there's a basic problem with your example code:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
"test.dependencies"
isn't referring to "f.dependencies" where f is the current function; it's referencing the actual global value "test". That means if you use more than one decorator:
@memoize
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
it'll no longer work, since "test" is memoize's wrapped function, not depends's. Python really needs a way to refer to "the currently-executing function" (and class).
add a comment |
This isn't possible. I think this is to allow for performance optimizations later on. Python bytecode references locals by index, not by name; if locals() was required to be writable, it could prevent interpreters from implementing some optimizations, or make them more difficult.
I'm fairly certain you're not going to find any core API that guarantees you can edit locals like this, because if that API could do it, locals() wouldn't have this restriction either.
Don't forget that all locals must exist at compile-time; if you reference a name that isn't bound to a local at compile-time, the compiler assumes it's a global. You can't "create" locals after compilation.
See this question for one possible solution, but it's a serious hack and you really don't want to do that.
Note that there's a basic problem with your example code:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
"test.dependencies"
isn't referring to "f.dependencies" where f is the current function; it's referencing the actual global value "test". That means if you use more than one decorator:
@memoize
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
it'll no longer work, since "test" is memoize's wrapped function, not depends's. Python really needs a way to refer to "the currently-executing function" (and class).
add a comment |
This isn't possible. I think this is to allow for performance optimizations later on. Python bytecode references locals by index, not by name; if locals() was required to be writable, it could prevent interpreters from implementing some optimizations, or make them more difficult.
I'm fairly certain you're not going to find any core API that guarantees you can edit locals like this, because if that API could do it, locals() wouldn't have this restriction either.
Don't forget that all locals must exist at compile-time; if you reference a name that isn't bound to a local at compile-time, the compiler assumes it's a global. You can't "create" locals after compilation.
See this question for one possible solution, but it's a serious hack and you really don't want to do that.
Note that there's a basic problem with your example code:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
"test.dependencies"
isn't referring to "f.dependencies" where f is the current function; it's referencing the actual global value "test". That means if you use more than one decorator:
@memoize
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
it'll no longer work, since "test" is memoize's wrapped function, not depends's. Python really needs a way to refer to "the currently-executing function" (and class).
This isn't possible. I think this is to allow for performance optimizations later on. Python bytecode references locals by index, not by name; if locals() was required to be writable, it could prevent interpreters from implementing some optimizations, or make them more difficult.
I'm fairly certain you're not going to find any core API that guarantees you can edit locals like this, because if that API could do it, locals() wouldn't have this restriction either.
Don't forget that all locals must exist at compile-time; if you reference a name that isn't bound to a local at compile-time, the compiler assumes it's a global. You can't "create" locals after compilation.
See this question for one possible solution, but it's a serious hack and you really don't want to do that.
Note that there's a basic problem with your example code:
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
"test.dependencies"
isn't referring to "f.dependencies" where f is the current function; it's referencing the actual global value "test". That means if you use more than one decorator:
@memoize
@depends("a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f")
def test():
put_into_locals(test.dependencies)
it'll no longer work, since "test" is memoize's wrapped function, not depends's. Python really needs a way to refer to "the currently-executing function" (and class).
edited May 23 '17 at 12:22
Community♦
11
11
answered Sep 20 '09 at 4:37
Glenn MaynardGlenn Maynard
43.4k693122
43.4k693122
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would store it in a variable:
refs = locals()
def set_pets():
global refs
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
refs['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
set_pets()
refs['pet_05']='bird'
print(pet_00, pet_02, pet_04, pet_01, pet_03, pet_05 )
>> dog fish monkey cat fox bird
And if you want to test your dict before putting it in locals():
def set_pets():
global refs
sandbox = {}
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
sandbox['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
# Test sandboxed dict here
refs.update( sandbox )
Python 3.6.1 on MacOS Sierra
add a comment |
I would store it in a variable:
refs = locals()
def set_pets():
global refs
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
refs['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
set_pets()
refs['pet_05']='bird'
print(pet_00, pet_02, pet_04, pet_01, pet_03, pet_05 )
>> dog fish monkey cat fox bird
And if you want to test your dict before putting it in locals():
def set_pets():
global refs
sandbox = {}
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
sandbox['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
# Test sandboxed dict here
refs.update( sandbox )
Python 3.6.1 on MacOS Sierra
add a comment |
I would store it in a variable:
refs = locals()
def set_pets():
global refs
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
refs['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
set_pets()
refs['pet_05']='bird'
print(pet_00, pet_02, pet_04, pet_01, pet_03, pet_05 )
>> dog fish monkey cat fox bird
And if you want to test your dict before putting it in locals():
def set_pets():
global refs
sandbox = {}
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
sandbox['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
# Test sandboxed dict here
refs.update( sandbox )
Python 3.6.1 on MacOS Sierra
I would store it in a variable:
refs = locals()
def set_pets():
global refs
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
refs['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
set_pets()
refs['pet_05']='bird'
print(pet_00, pet_02, pet_04, pet_01, pet_03, pet_05 )
>> dog fish monkey cat fox bird
And if you want to test your dict before putting it in locals():
def set_pets():
global refs
sandbox = {}
animals = ('dog', 'cat', 'fish', 'fox', 'monkey')
for i in range(len(animals)):
sandbox['pet_0%s' % i] = animals[i]
# Test sandboxed dict here
refs.update( sandbox )
Python 3.6.1 on MacOS Sierra
answered Jul 18 '17 at 20:52
David PennellDavid Pennell
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
I'm not sure if it is subject to the same restrictions, but you can get a direct reference to the current frame (and from there, the local variables dictionary) through the inspect module:
>>> import inspect
>>> inspect.currentframe().f_locals['foo'] = 'bar'
>>> dir()
['__builtins__', '__doc__', '__name__', '__package__', 'foo', 'inspect']
>>> foo
'bar'
7
This is exactly the same as locals();inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.
– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
1
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
add a comment |
I'm not sure if it is subject to the same restrictions, but you can get a direct reference to the current frame (and from there, the local variables dictionary) through the inspect module:
>>> import inspect
>>> inspect.currentframe().f_locals['foo'] = 'bar'
>>> dir()
['__builtins__', '__doc__', '__name__', '__package__', 'foo', 'inspect']
>>> foo
'bar'
7
This is exactly the same as locals();inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.
– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
1
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
add a comment |
I'm not sure if it is subject to the same restrictions, but you can get a direct reference to the current frame (and from there, the local variables dictionary) through the inspect module:
>>> import inspect
>>> inspect.currentframe().f_locals['foo'] = 'bar'
>>> dir()
['__builtins__', '__doc__', '__name__', '__package__', 'foo', 'inspect']
>>> foo
'bar'
I'm not sure if it is subject to the same restrictions, but you can get a direct reference to the current frame (and from there, the local variables dictionary) through the inspect module:
>>> import inspect
>>> inspect.currentframe().f_locals['foo'] = 'bar'
>>> dir()
['__builtins__', '__doc__', '__name__', '__package__', 'foo', 'inspect']
>>> foo
'bar'
answered Sep 20 '09 at 4:13
dcrostadcrosta
19.2k65877
19.2k65877
7
This is exactly the same as locals();inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.
– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
1
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
add a comment |
7
This is exactly the same as locals();inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.
– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
1
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
7
7
This is exactly the same as locals();
inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
This is exactly the same as locals();
inspect.currentframe().f_locals is locals()
is true.– Glenn Maynard
Sep 20 '09 at 4:21
1
1
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
This is not totally wrong, but it only works when the frame is the topmost one i.e. the global scope. It wont work within local scopes.
– bendtherules
Jun 12 '15 at 1:50
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f1450275%2fany-way-to-modify-locals-dictionary%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Link to the relevant documentation: docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#locals
– Ceasar Bautista
Dec 5 '14 at 19:53
why does
test. dependencies = ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"]
work and then decorate the assignment I wrote above to yourtest()
function?– Charlie Parker
Jun 22 '17 at 22:34
did you manage to update/modify locals or no?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:20
is there a way to make it work for python 3 or more?
– Charlie Parker
Oct 16 '17 at 22:23