Related
Suppose I have a function like:
def foo():
x = 'hello world'
How do I get the function to return x, in such a way that I can use it as the input for another function or use the variable within the body of a program? I tried using return and then using the x variable in another function, but I get a NameError that way.
For the specific case of communicating information between methods in the same class, it is often best to store the information in self. See Passing variables between methods in Python? for details.
def foo():
x = 'hello world'
return x # return 'hello world' would do, too
foo()
print(x) # NameError - x is not defined outside the function
y = foo()
print(y) # this works
x = foo()
print(x) # this also works, and it's a completely different x than that inside
# foo()
z = bar(x) # of course, now you can use x as you want
z = bar(foo()) # but you don't have to
Effectively, there are two ways: directly and indirectly.
The direct way is to return a value from the function, as you tried, and let the calling code use that value. This is normally what you want. The natural, simple, direct, explicit way to get information back from a function is to return it. Broadly speaking, the purpose of a function is to compute a value, and return signifies "this is the value we computed; we are done here".
Directly using return
The main trick here is that return returns a value, not a variable. So return x does not enable the calling code to use x after calling the function, and does not modify any existing value that x had in the context of the call. (That's presumably why you got a NameError.)
After we use return in the function:
def example():
x = 'hello world'
return x
we need to write the calling code to use the return value:
result = example()
print(result)
The other key point here is that a call to a function is an expression, so we can use it the same way that we use, say, the result of an addition. Just as we may say result = 'hello ' + 'world', we may say result = foo(). After that, result is our own, local name for that string, and we can do whatever we want with it.
We can use the same name, x, if we want. Or we can use a different name. The calling code doesn't have to know anything about how the function is written, or what names it uses for things.1
We can use the value directly to call another function: for example, print(foo()).2 We can return the value directly: simply return 'hello world', without assigning to x. (Again: we are returning a value, not a variable.)
The function can only return once each time it is called. return terminates the function - again, we just determined the result of the calculation, so there is no reason to calculate any further. If we want to return multiple pieces of information, therefore, we will need to come up with a single object (in Python, "value" and "object" are effectively synonyms; this doesn't work out so well for some other languages.)
We can make a tuple right on the return line; or we can use a dictionary, a namedtuple (Python 2.6+), a types.simpleNamespace (Python 3.3+), a dataclass (Python 3.7+), or some other class (perhaps even one we write ourselves) to associate names with the values that are being returned; or we can accumulate values from a loop in a list; etc. etc. The possibilities are endless..
On the other hand, the function returns whether you like it or not (unless an exception is raised). If it reaches the end, it will implicitly return the special value None. You may or may not want to do it explicitly instead.
Indirect methods
Other than returning the result back to the caller directly, we can communicate it by modifying some existing object that the caller knows about. There are many ways to do that, but they're all variations on that same theme.
If you want the code to communicate information back this way, please just let it return None - don't also use the return value for something meaningful. That's how the built-in functionality works.
In order to modify that object, the called function also has to know about it, of course. That means, having a name for the object that can be looked up in a current scope. So, let's go through those in order:
Local scope: Modifying a passed-in argument
If one of our parameters is mutable, we can just mutate it, and rely on the caller to examine the change. This is usually not a great idea, because it can be hard to reason about the code. It looks like:
def called(mutable):
mutable.append('world')
def caller():
my_value = ['hello'] # a list with just that string
called(my_value)
# now it contains both strings
If the value is an instance of our own class, we could also assign to an attribute:
class Test:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def called(mutable):
mutable.value = 'world'
def caller():
test = Test('hello')
called(test)
# now test.value has changed
Assigning to an attribute does not work for built-in types, including object; and it might not work for some classes that explicitly prevent you from doing it.
Local scope: Modifying self, in a method
We already have an example of this above: setting self.value in the Test.__init__ code. This is a special case of modifying a passed-in argument; but it's part of how classes work in Python, and something we're expected to do. Normally, when we do this, the calling won't actually check for changes to self - it will just use the modified object in the next step of the logic. That's what makes it appropriate to write code this way: we're still presenting an interface, so the caller doesn't have to worry about the details.
class Example:
def __init__(self):
self._words = ['hello']
def add_word(self):
self._words.append('world')
def display(self):
print(*self.words)
x = Example()
x.add_word()
x.display()
In the example, calling add_word gave information back to the top-level code - but instead of looking for it, we just go ahead and call display.3
See also: Passing variables between methods in Python?
Enclosing scope
This is a rare special case when using nested functions. There isn't a lot to say here - it works the same way as with the global scope, just using the nonlocal keyword rather than global.4
Global scope: Modifying a global
Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to change anything in the global scope after setting it up in the first place. It makes code harder to reason about, because anything that uses that global (aside from whatever was responsible for the change) now has a "hidden" source of input.
If you still want to do it, the syntax is straightforward:
words = ['hello']
def add_global_word():
words.append('world')
add_global_word() # `words` is changed
Global scope: Assigning to a new or existing global
This is actually a special case of modifying a global. I don't mean that assignment is a kind of modification (it isn't). I mean that when you assign a global name, Python automatically updates a dict that represents the global namespace. You can get that dict with globals(), and you can modify that dict and it will actually impact what global variables exist. (I.e., the return from globals() is the dictionary itself, not a copy.)5
But please don't. That's even worse of an idea than the previous one. If you really need to get the result from your function by assigning to a global variable, use the global keyword to tell Python that the name should be looked up in the global scope:
words = ['hello']
def replace_global_words():
global words
words = ['hello', 'world']
replace_global_words() # `words` is a new list with both words
Global scope: Assigning to or modifying an attribute of the function itself
This is a rare special case, but now that you've seen the other examples, the theory should be clear. In Python, functions are mutable (i.e. you can set attributes on them); and if we define a function at top level, it's in the global namespace. So this is really just modifying a global:
def set_own_words():
set_own_words.words = ['hello', 'world']
set_own_words()
print(*set_own_words.words)
We shouldn't really use this to send information to the caller. It has all the usual problems with globals, and it's even harder to understand. But it can be useful to set a function's attributes from within the function, in order for the function to remember something in between calls. (It's similar to how methods remember things in between calls by modifying self.) The functools standard library does this, for example in the cache implementation.
Builtin scope
This doesn't work. The builtin namespace doesn't contain any mutable objects, and you can't assign new builtin names (they'll go into the global namespace instead).
Some approaches that don't work in Python
Just calculating something before the function ends
In some other programming languages, there is some kind of hidden variable that automatically picks up the result of the last calculation, every time something is calculated; and if you reach the end of a function without returning anything, it gets returned. That doesn't work in Python. If you reach the end without returning anything, your function returns None.
Assigning to the function's name
In some other programming languages, you are allowed (or expected) to assign to a variable with the same name as the function; and at the end of the function, that value is returned. That still doesn't work in Python. If you reach the end without returning anything, your function still returns None.
def broken():
broken = 1
broken()
print(broken + 1) # causes a `TypeError`
It might seem like you can at least use the value that way, if you use the global keyword:
def subtly_broken():
global subtly_broken
subtly_broken = 1
subtly_broken()
print(subtly_broken + 1) # 2
But this, of course, is just a special case of assigning to a global. And there's a big problem with it - the same name can't refer to two things at once. By doing this, the function replaced its own name. So it will fail next time:
def subtly_broken():
global subtly_broken
subtly_broken = 1
subtly_broken()
subtly_broken() # causes a `TypeError`
Assigning to a parameter
Sometimes people expect to be able to assign to one of the function's parameters, and have it affect a variable that was used for the corresponding argument. However, this does not work:
def broken(words):
words = ['hello', 'world']
data = ['hello']
broken(data) # `data` does not change
Just like how Python returns values, not variables, it also passes values, not variables. words is a local name; by definition the calling code doesn't know anything about that namespace.
One of the working methods that we saw is to modify the passed-in list. That works because if the list itself changes, then it changes - it doesn't matter what name is used for it, or what part of the code uses that name. However, assigning a new list to words does not cause the existing list to change. It just makes words start being a name for a different list.
For more information, see How do I pass a variable by reference?.
1 At least, not for getting the value back. If you want to use keyword arguments, you need to know what the keyword names are. But generally, the point of functions is that they're an abstraction; you only need to know about their interface, and you don't need to think about what they're doing internally.
2 In 2.x, print is a statement rather than a function, so this doesn't make an example of calling another function directly. However, print foo() still works with 2.x's print statement, and so does print(foo()) (in this case, the extra parentheses are just ordinary grouping parentheses). Aside from that, 2.7 (the last 2.x version) has been unsupported since the beginning of 2020 - which was nearly a 5 year extension of the normal schedule. But then, this question was originally asked in 2010.
3Again: if the purpose of a method is to update the object, don't also return a value. Some people like to return self so that you can "chain" method calls; but in Python this is considered poor style. If you want that kind of "fluent" interface, then instead of writing methods that update self, write methods that create a new, modified instance of the class.
4 Except, of course, that if we're modifying a value rather than assigning, we don't need either keyword.
5 There's also a locals() that gives you a dict of local variables. However, this cannot be used to make new local variables - the behaviour is undefined in 2.x, and in 3.x the dict is created on the fly and assigning to it has no effect. Some of Python's optimizations depend on the local variables for a function being known ahead of time.
>>> def foo():
return 'hello world'
>>> x = foo()
>>> x
'hello world'
You can use global statement and then achieve what you want without returning value from
the function. For example you can do something like below:
def foo():
global x
x = "hello world"
foo()
print x
The above code will print "hello world".
But please be warned that usage of "global" is not a good idea at all and it is better to avoid usage that is shown in my example.
Also check this related discussion on about usage of global statement in Python.
Suppose I have a function like:
def foo():
x = 'hello world'
How do I get the function to return x, in such a way that I can use it as the input for another function or use the variable within the body of a program? I tried using return and then using the x variable in another function, but I get a NameError that way.
For the specific case of communicating information between methods in the same class, it is often best to store the information in self. See Passing variables between methods in Python? for details.
def foo():
x = 'hello world'
return x # return 'hello world' would do, too
foo()
print(x) # NameError - x is not defined outside the function
y = foo()
print(y) # this works
x = foo()
print(x) # this also works, and it's a completely different x than that inside
# foo()
z = bar(x) # of course, now you can use x as you want
z = bar(foo()) # but you don't have to
Effectively, there are two ways: directly and indirectly.
The direct way is to return a value from the function, as you tried, and let the calling code use that value. This is normally what you want. The natural, simple, direct, explicit way to get information back from a function is to return it. Broadly speaking, the purpose of a function is to compute a value, and return signifies "this is the value we computed; we are done here".
Directly using return
The main trick here is that return returns a value, not a variable. So return x does not enable the calling code to use x after calling the function, and does not modify any existing value that x had in the context of the call. (That's presumably why you got a NameError.)
After we use return in the function:
def example():
x = 'hello world'
return x
we need to write the calling code to use the return value:
result = example()
print(result)
The other key point here is that a call to a function is an expression, so we can use it the same way that we use, say, the result of an addition. Just as we may say result = 'hello ' + 'world', we may say result = foo(). After that, result is our own, local name for that string, and we can do whatever we want with it.
We can use the same name, x, if we want. Or we can use a different name. The calling code doesn't have to know anything about how the function is written, or what names it uses for things.1
We can use the value directly to call another function: for example, print(foo()).2 We can return the value directly: simply return 'hello world', without assigning to x. (Again: we are returning a value, not a variable.)
The function can only return once each time it is called. return terminates the function - again, we just determined the result of the calculation, so there is no reason to calculate any further. If we want to return multiple pieces of information, therefore, we will need to come up with a single object (in Python, "value" and "object" are effectively synonyms; this doesn't work out so well for some other languages.)
We can make a tuple right on the return line; or we can use a dictionary, a namedtuple (Python 2.6+), a types.simpleNamespace (Python 3.3+), a dataclass (Python 3.7+), or some other class (perhaps even one we write ourselves) to associate names with the values that are being returned; or we can accumulate values from a loop in a list; etc. etc. The possibilities are endless..
On the other hand, the function returns whether you like it or not (unless an exception is raised). If it reaches the end, it will implicitly return the special value None. You may or may not want to do it explicitly instead.
Indirect methods
Other than returning the result back to the caller directly, we can communicate it by modifying some existing object that the caller knows about. There are many ways to do that, but they're all variations on that same theme.
If you want the code to communicate information back this way, please just let it return None - don't also use the return value for something meaningful. That's how the built-in functionality works.
In order to modify that object, the called function also has to know about it, of course. That means, having a name for the object that can be looked up in a current scope. So, let's go through those in order:
Local scope: Modifying a passed-in argument
If one of our parameters is mutable, we can just mutate it, and rely on the caller to examine the change. This is usually not a great idea, because it can be hard to reason about the code. It looks like:
def called(mutable):
mutable.append('world')
def caller():
my_value = ['hello'] # a list with just that string
called(my_value)
# now it contains both strings
If the value is an instance of our own class, we could also assign to an attribute:
class Test:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def called(mutable):
mutable.value = 'world'
def caller():
test = Test('hello')
called(test)
# now test.value has changed
Assigning to an attribute does not work for built-in types, including object; and it might not work for some classes that explicitly prevent you from doing it.
Local scope: Modifying self, in a method
We already have an example of this above: setting self.value in the Test.__init__ code. This is a special case of modifying a passed-in argument; but it's part of how classes work in Python, and something we're expected to do. Normally, when we do this, the calling won't actually check for changes to self - it will just use the modified object in the next step of the logic. That's what makes it appropriate to write code this way: we're still presenting an interface, so the caller doesn't have to worry about the details.
class Example:
def __init__(self):
self._words = ['hello']
def add_word(self):
self._words.append('world')
def display(self):
print(*self.words)
x = Example()
x.add_word()
x.display()
In the example, calling add_word gave information back to the top-level code - but instead of looking for it, we just go ahead and call display.3
See also: Passing variables between methods in Python?
Enclosing scope
This is a rare special case when using nested functions. There isn't a lot to say here - it works the same way as with the global scope, just using the nonlocal keyword rather than global.4
Global scope: Modifying a global
Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to change anything in the global scope after setting it up in the first place. It makes code harder to reason about, because anything that uses that global (aside from whatever was responsible for the change) now has a "hidden" source of input.
If you still want to do it, the syntax is straightforward:
words = ['hello']
def add_global_word():
words.append('world')
add_global_word() # `words` is changed
Global scope: Assigning to a new or existing global
This is actually a special case of modifying a global. I don't mean that assignment is a kind of modification (it isn't). I mean that when you assign a global name, Python automatically updates a dict that represents the global namespace. You can get that dict with globals(), and you can modify that dict and it will actually impact what global variables exist. (I.e., the return from globals() is the dictionary itself, not a copy.)5
But please don't. That's even worse of an idea than the previous one. If you really need to get the result from your function by assigning to a global variable, use the global keyword to tell Python that the name should be looked up in the global scope:
words = ['hello']
def replace_global_words():
global words
words = ['hello', 'world']
replace_global_words() # `words` is a new list with both words
Global scope: Assigning to or modifying an attribute of the function itself
This is a rare special case, but now that you've seen the other examples, the theory should be clear. In Python, functions are mutable (i.e. you can set attributes on them); and if we define a function at top level, it's in the global namespace. So this is really just modifying a global:
def set_own_words():
set_own_words.words = ['hello', 'world']
set_own_words()
print(*set_own_words.words)
We shouldn't really use this to send information to the caller. It has all the usual problems with globals, and it's even harder to understand. But it can be useful to set a function's attributes from within the function, in order for the function to remember something in between calls. (It's similar to how methods remember things in between calls by modifying self.) The functools standard library does this, for example in the cache implementation.
Builtin scope
This doesn't work. The builtin namespace doesn't contain any mutable objects, and you can't assign new builtin names (they'll go into the global namespace instead).
Some approaches that don't work in Python
Just calculating something before the function ends
In some other programming languages, there is some kind of hidden variable that automatically picks up the result of the last calculation, every time something is calculated; and if you reach the end of a function without returning anything, it gets returned. That doesn't work in Python. If you reach the end without returning anything, your function returns None.
Assigning to the function's name
In some other programming languages, you are allowed (or expected) to assign to a variable with the same name as the function; and at the end of the function, that value is returned. That still doesn't work in Python. If you reach the end without returning anything, your function still returns None.
def broken():
broken = 1
broken()
print(broken + 1) # causes a `TypeError`
It might seem like you can at least use the value that way, if you use the global keyword:
def subtly_broken():
global subtly_broken
subtly_broken = 1
subtly_broken()
print(subtly_broken + 1) # 2
But this, of course, is just a special case of assigning to a global. And there's a big problem with it - the same name can't refer to two things at once. By doing this, the function replaced its own name. So it will fail next time:
def subtly_broken():
global subtly_broken
subtly_broken = 1
subtly_broken()
subtly_broken() # causes a `TypeError`
Assigning to a parameter
Sometimes people expect to be able to assign to one of the function's parameters, and have it affect a variable that was used for the corresponding argument. However, this does not work:
def broken(words):
words = ['hello', 'world']
data = ['hello']
broken(data) # `data` does not change
Just like how Python returns values, not variables, it also passes values, not variables. words is a local name; by definition the calling code doesn't know anything about that namespace.
One of the working methods that we saw is to modify the passed-in list. That works because if the list itself changes, then it changes - it doesn't matter what name is used for it, or what part of the code uses that name. However, assigning a new list to words does not cause the existing list to change. It just makes words start being a name for a different list.
For more information, see How do I pass a variable by reference?.
1 At least, not for getting the value back. If you want to use keyword arguments, you need to know what the keyword names are. But generally, the point of functions is that they're an abstraction; you only need to know about their interface, and you don't need to think about what they're doing internally.
2 In 2.x, print is a statement rather than a function, so this doesn't make an example of calling another function directly. However, print foo() still works with 2.x's print statement, and so does print(foo()) (in this case, the extra parentheses are just ordinary grouping parentheses). Aside from that, 2.7 (the last 2.x version) has been unsupported since the beginning of 2020 - which was nearly a 5 year extension of the normal schedule. But then, this question was originally asked in 2010.
3Again: if the purpose of a method is to update the object, don't also return a value. Some people like to return self so that you can "chain" method calls; but in Python this is considered poor style. If you want that kind of "fluent" interface, then instead of writing methods that update self, write methods that create a new, modified instance of the class.
4 Except, of course, that if we're modifying a value rather than assigning, we don't need either keyword.
5 There's also a locals() that gives you a dict of local variables. However, this cannot be used to make new local variables - the behaviour is undefined in 2.x, and in 3.x the dict is created on the fly and assigning to it has no effect. Some of Python's optimizations depend on the local variables for a function being known ahead of time.
>>> def foo():
return 'hello world'
>>> x = foo()
>>> x
'hello world'
You can use global statement and then achieve what you want without returning value from
the function. For example you can do something like below:
def foo():
global x
x = "hello world"
foo()
print x
The above code will print "hello world".
But please be warned that usage of "global" is not a good idea at all and it is better to avoid usage that is shown in my example.
Also check this related discussion on about usage of global statement in Python.
Suppose I have a function like:
def foo():
x = 'hello world'
How do I get the function to return x, in such a way that I can use it as the input for another function or use the variable within the body of a program? I tried using return and then using the x variable in another function, but I get a NameError that way.
For the specific case of communicating information between methods in the same class, it is often best to store the information in self. See Passing variables between methods in Python? for details.
def foo():
x = 'hello world'
return x # return 'hello world' would do, too
foo()
print(x) # NameError - x is not defined outside the function
y = foo()
print(y) # this works
x = foo()
print(x) # this also works, and it's a completely different x than that inside
# foo()
z = bar(x) # of course, now you can use x as you want
z = bar(foo()) # but you don't have to
Effectively, there are two ways: directly and indirectly.
The direct way is to return a value from the function, as you tried, and let the calling code use that value. This is normally what you want. The natural, simple, direct, explicit way to get information back from a function is to return it. Broadly speaking, the purpose of a function is to compute a value, and return signifies "this is the value we computed; we are done here".
Directly using return
The main trick here is that return returns a value, not a variable. So return x does not enable the calling code to use x after calling the function, and does not modify any existing value that x had in the context of the call. (That's presumably why you got a NameError.)
After we use return in the function:
def example():
x = 'hello world'
return x
we need to write the calling code to use the return value:
result = example()
print(result)
The other key point here is that a call to a function is an expression, so we can use it the same way that we use, say, the result of an addition. Just as we may say result = 'hello ' + 'world', we may say result = foo(). After that, result is our own, local name for that string, and we can do whatever we want with it.
We can use the same name, x, if we want. Or we can use a different name. The calling code doesn't have to know anything about how the function is written, or what names it uses for things.1
We can use the value directly to call another function: for example, print(foo()).2 We can return the value directly: simply return 'hello world', without assigning to x. (Again: we are returning a value, not a variable.)
The function can only return once each time it is called. return terminates the function - again, we just determined the result of the calculation, so there is no reason to calculate any further. If we want to return multiple pieces of information, therefore, we will need to come up with a single object (in Python, "value" and "object" are effectively synonyms; this doesn't work out so well for some other languages.)
We can make a tuple right on the return line; or we can use a dictionary, a namedtuple (Python 2.6+), a types.simpleNamespace (Python 3.3+), a dataclass (Python 3.7+), or some other class (perhaps even one we write ourselves) to associate names with the values that are being returned; or we can accumulate values from a loop in a list; etc. etc. The possibilities are endless..
On the other hand, the function returns whether you like it or not (unless an exception is raised). If it reaches the end, it will implicitly return the special value None. You may or may not want to do it explicitly instead.
Indirect methods
Other than returning the result back to the caller directly, we can communicate it by modifying some existing object that the caller knows about. There are many ways to do that, but they're all variations on that same theme.
If you want the code to communicate information back this way, please just let it return None - don't also use the return value for something meaningful. That's how the built-in functionality works.
In order to modify that object, the called function also has to know about it, of course. That means, having a name for the object that can be looked up in a current scope. So, let's go through those in order:
Local scope: Modifying a passed-in argument
If one of our parameters is mutable, we can just mutate it, and rely on the caller to examine the change. This is usually not a great idea, because it can be hard to reason about the code. It looks like:
def called(mutable):
mutable.append('world')
def caller():
my_value = ['hello'] # a list with just that string
called(my_value)
# now it contains both strings
If the value is an instance of our own class, we could also assign to an attribute:
class Test:
def __init__(self, value):
self.value = value
def called(mutable):
mutable.value = 'world'
def caller():
test = Test('hello')
called(test)
# now test.value has changed
Assigning to an attribute does not work for built-in types, including object; and it might not work for some classes that explicitly prevent you from doing it.
Local scope: Modifying self, in a method
We already have an example of this above: setting self.value in the Test.__init__ code. This is a special case of modifying a passed-in argument; but it's part of how classes work in Python, and something we're expected to do. Normally, when we do this, the calling won't actually check for changes to self - it will just use the modified object in the next step of the logic. That's what makes it appropriate to write code this way: we're still presenting an interface, so the caller doesn't have to worry about the details.
class Example:
def __init__(self):
self._words = ['hello']
def add_word(self):
self._words.append('world')
def display(self):
print(*self.words)
x = Example()
x.add_word()
x.display()
In the example, calling add_word gave information back to the top-level code - but instead of looking for it, we just go ahead and call display.3
See also: Passing variables between methods in Python?
Enclosing scope
This is a rare special case when using nested functions. There isn't a lot to say here - it works the same way as with the global scope, just using the nonlocal keyword rather than global.4
Global scope: Modifying a global
Generally speaking, it is a bad idea to change anything in the global scope after setting it up in the first place. It makes code harder to reason about, because anything that uses that global (aside from whatever was responsible for the change) now has a "hidden" source of input.
If you still want to do it, the syntax is straightforward:
words = ['hello']
def add_global_word():
words.append('world')
add_global_word() # `words` is changed
Global scope: Assigning to a new or existing global
This is actually a special case of modifying a global. I don't mean that assignment is a kind of modification (it isn't). I mean that when you assign a global name, Python automatically updates a dict that represents the global namespace. You can get that dict with globals(), and you can modify that dict and it will actually impact what global variables exist. (I.e., the return from globals() is the dictionary itself, not a copy.)5
But please don't. That's even worse of an idea than the previous one. If you really need to get the result from your function by assigning to a global variable, use the global keyword to tell Python that the name should be looked up in the global scope:
words = ['hello']
def replace_global_words():
global words
words = ['hello', 'world']
replace_global_words() # `words` is a new list with both words
Global scope: Assigning to or modifying an attribute of the function itself
This is a rare special case, but now that you've seen the other examples, the theory should be clear. In Python, functions are mutable (i.e. you can set attributes on them); and if we define a function at top level, it's in the global namespace. So this is really just modifying a global:
def set_own_words():
set_own_words.words = ['hello', 'world']
set_own_words()
print(*set_own_words.words)
We shouldn't really use this to send information to the caller. It has all the usual problems with globals, and it's even harder to understand. But it can be useful to set a function's attributes from within the function, in order for the function to remember something in between calls. (It's similar to how methods remember things in between calls by modifying self.) The functools standard library does this, for example in the cache implementation.
Builtin scope
This doesn't work. The builtin namespace doesn't contain any mutable objects, and you can't assign new builtin names (they'll go into the global namespace instead).
Some approaches that don't work in Python
Just calculating something before the function ends
In some other programming languages, there is some kind of hidden variable that automatically picks up the result of the last calculation, every time something is calculated; and if you reach the end of a function without returning anything, it gets returned. That doesn't work in Python. If you reach the end without returning anything, your function returns None.
Assigning to the function's name
In some other programming languages, you are allowed (or expected) to assign to a variable with the same name as the function; and at the end of the function, that value is returned. That still doesn't work in Python. If you reach the end without returning anything, your function still returns None.
def broken():
broken = 1
broken()
print(broken + 1) # causes a `TypeError`
It might seem like you can at least use the value that way, if you use the global keyword:
def subtly_broken():
global subtly_broken
subtly_broken = 1
subtly_broken()
print(subtly_broken + 1) # 2
But this, of course, is just a special case of assigning to a global. And there's a big problem with it - the same name can't refer to two things at once. By doing this, the function replaced its own name. So it will fail next time:
def subtly_broken():
global subtly_broken
subtly_broken = 1
subtly_broken()
subtly_broken() # causes a `TypeError`
Assigning to a parameter
Sometimes people expect to be able to assign to one of the function's parameters, and have it affect a variable that was used for the corresponding argument. However, this does not work:
def broken(words):
words = ['hello', 'world']
data = ['hello']
broken(data) # `data` does not change
Just like how Python returns values, not variables, it also passes values, not variables. words is a local name; by definition the calling code doesn't know anything about that namespace.
One of the working methods that we saw is to modify the passed-in list. That works because if the list itself changes, then it changes - it doesn't matter what name is used for it, or what part of the code uses that name. However, assigning a new list to words does not cause the existing list to change. It just makes words start being a name for a different list.
For more information, see How do I pass a variable by reference?.
1 At least, not for getting the value back. If you want to use keyword arguments, you need to know what the keyword names are. But generally, the point of functions is that they're an abstraction; you only need to know about their interface, and you don't need to think about what they're doing internally.
2 In 2.x, print is a statement rather than a function, so this doesn't make an example of calling another function directly. However, print foo() still works with 2.x's print statement, and so does print(foo()) (in this case, the extra parentheses are just ordinary grouping parentheses). Aside from that, 2.7 (the last 2.x version) has been unsupported since the beginning of 2020 - which was nearly a 5 year extension of the normal schedule. But then, this question was originally asked in 2010.
3Again: if the purpose of a method is to update the object, don't also return a value. Some people like to return self so that you can "chain" method calls; but in Python this is considered poor style. If you want that kind of "fluent" interface, then instead of writing methods that update self, write methods that create a new, modified instance of the class.
4 Except, of course, that if we're modifying a value rather than assigning, we don't need either keyword.
5 There's also a locals() that gives you a dict of local variables. However, this cannot be used to make new local variables - the behaviour is undefined in 2.x, and in 3.x the dict is created on the fly and assigning to it has no effect. Some of Python's optimizations depend on the local variables for a function being known ahead of time.
>>> def foo():
return 'hello world'
>>> x = foo()
>>> x
'hello world'
You can use global statement and then achieve what you want without returning value from
the function. For example you can do something like below:
def foo():
global x
x = "hello world"
foo()
print x
The above code will print "hello world".
But please be warned that usage of "global" is not a good idea at all and it is better to avoid usage that is shown in my example.
Also check this related discussion on about usage of global statement in Python.
Out of curiosity is more desirable to explicitly pass functions to other functions, or let the function call functions from within. is this a case of Explicit is better than implicit?
for example (the following is only to illustrate what i mean)
def foo(x,y):
return 1 if x > y else 0
partialfun = functools.partial(foo, 1)
def bar(xs,ys):
return partialfun(sum(map(operator.mul,xs,ys)))
>>> bar([1,2,3], [4,5,6])
--or--
def foo(x,y):
return 1 if x > y else 0
partialfun = functools.partial(foo, 1)
def bar(fn,xs,ys):
return fn(sum(map(operator.mul,xs,ys)))
>>> bar(partialfun, [1,2,3], [4,5,6])
There's not really any difference between functions and anything else in this situation. You pass something as an argument if it's a parameter that might vary over different invocations of the function. If the function you are calling (bar in your example) is always calling the same other function, there's no reason to pass that as an argument. If you need to parameterize it so that you can use many different functions (i.e., bar might need to call many functions besides partialfun, and needs to know which one to call), then you need to pass it as an argument.
Generally, yes, but as always, it depends. What you are illustrating here is known as dependency injection. Generally, it is a good idea, as it allows separation of variability from the logic of a given function. This means, for example, that it will be extremely easy for you to test such code.
# To test the process performed in bar(), we can "inject" a function
# which simply returns its argument
def dummy(x):
return x
def bar(fn,xs,ys):
return fn(sum(map(operator.mul,xs,ys)))
>>> assert bar(dummy, [1,2,3], [4,5,6]) == 32
It depends very much on the context.
Basically, if the function is an argument to bar, then it's the responsibility of the caller to know how to implement that function. bar doesn't have to care. But consequently, bar's documentation has to describe what kind of function it needs.
Often this is very appropriate. The obvious example is the map builtin function. map implements the logic of applying a function to each item in a list, and giving back a list of results. map itself neither knows nor cares about what the items are, or what the function is doing to them. map's documentation has to describe that it needs a function of one argument, and each caller of map has to know how to implement or find a suitable function. But this arrangement is great; it allows you to pass a list of your custom objects, and a function which operates specifically on those objects, and map can go away and do its generic thing.
But often this arrangement is inappropriate. A function gives a name to a high level operation and hides the internal implementation details, so you can think of the operation as a unit. Allowing part of its operation to be passed in from outside as a function parameter exposes that it works in a way that uses that function's interface.
A more concrete (though somewhat contrived) example may help. Lets say I've implemented data types representing Person and Job, and I'm writing a function name_and_title for formatting someone's full name and job title into a string, for client code to insert into email signatures or on letterhead or whatever. It's obviously going to take a Person and Job. It could potentially take a function parameter to let the caller decide how to format the person's name: something like lambda firstname, lastname: lastname + ', ' + firstname. But to do this is to expose that I'm representing people's names with a separate first name and last name. If I want to change to supporting a middle name, then either name_and_title won't be able to include the middle name, or I have to change the type of the function it accepts. When I realise that some people have 4 or more names and decide to change to storing a list of names, then I definitely have to change the type of function name_and_title accepts.
So for your bar example, we can't say which is better, because it's an abstract example with no meaning. It depends on whether the call to partialfun is an implementation detail of whatever bar is supposed to be doing, or whether the call to partialfun is something that the caller knows about (and might want to do something else). If it's "part of" bar, then it shouldn't be a parameter. If it's "part of" the caller, then it should be a parameter.
It's worth noting that bar could have a huge number of function parameters. You call sum, map, and operator.mul, which could all be parameterised to make bar more flexible:
def bar(fn, xs,ys, g, h, i):
return fn(g(h(i,xs,ys))
And the way in which g is called on the output of h could be abstracted too:
def bar(fn, xs, ys, g, h, i, j):
return fn(j(g, h(i, xs, ys)))
And we can keep going on and on, until bar doesn't do anything at all, and everything is controlled by the functions passed in, and the caller might as well have just directly done what they want done rather than writing 100 functions to do it and passing those to bar to execute the functions.
So there really isn't a definite answer one way or the other that applies all the time. It depends on the particular code you're writing.
I have a function. Inside that I'm maintainfing a dictionary of values.
I want that dictionary to be maintained between different function calls
Suppose the dic is :
a = {'a':1,'b':2,'c':3}
At first call,say,I changed a[a] to 100
Dict becomes a = {'a':100,'b':2,'c':3}
At another call,i changed a[b] to 200
I want that dic to be a = {'a':100,'b':200,'c':3}
But in my code a[a] doesn't remain 100.It changes to initial value 1.
I need an answer ASAP....I m already late...Please help me friends...
You might be talking about a callable object.
class MyFunction( object ):
def __init__( self ):
self.rememberThis= dict()
def __call__( self, arg1, arg2 ):
# do something
rememberThis['a'] = arg1
return someValue
myFunction= MyFunction()
From then on, use myFunction as a simple function. You can access the rememberThis dictionary using myFunction.rememberThis.
You could use a static variable:
def foo(k, v):
foo.a[k] = v
foo.a = {'a': 1, 'b': 2, 'c': 3}
foo('a', 100)
foo('b', 200)
print foo.a
Rather than forcing globals on the code base (that can be the decision of the caller) I prefer the idea of keeping the state related to an instance of the function. A class is good for this but doesn't communicate well what you are trying to accomplish and can be a bit verbose. Taking advantage of closures is, in my opinion, a lot cleaner.
def function_the_world_sees():
a = {'a':1,'b':2,'c':3}
def actual_function(arg0, arg1):
a[arg0] = arg1
return a
return actual_function
stateful_function = function_the_world_sees()
stateful_function("b", 100)
stateful_function("b", 200)
The main caution to keep in mind is that when you make assignments in "actual_function", they occur within "actual_function". This means you can't reassign a to a different variable. The work arounds I use are to put all of my variables I plan to reassign into either into a single element list per variable or a dictionary.
If 'a' is being created inside the function. It is going out of scope. Simply create it outside the function(and before the function is called). By doing this the list/hash will not be deleted after the program leaves the function.
a = {'a':1,'b':2,'c':3}
# call you funciton here
This question doesn't have an elegant answer, in my opinion. The options are callable objects, default values, and attribute hacks. Callable objects are the right answer, but they bring in a lot of structure for what would be a single "static" declaration in another language. Default values are a minor change to the code, but it's kludgy and can be confusing to a new python programmer looking at your code. I don't like them because their existence isn't hidden from anyone who might be looking at your API.
I generally go with an attribute hack. My preferred method is:
def myfunct():
if not hasattr(myfunct, 'state'): myfunct.state = list()
# access myfunct.state in the body however you want
This keeps the declaration of the state in the first line of the function where it belongs, as well as keeping myfunct as a function. The downside is you do the attribute check every time you call the function. This is almost certainly not going to be a bottleneck in most code.
You can 'cheat' using Python's behavior for default arguments. Default arguments are only evaluated once; they get reused for every call of the function.
>>> def testFunction(persistent_dict={'a': 0}):
... persistent_dict['a'] += 1
... print persistent_dict['a']
...
>>> testFunction()
1
>>> testFunction()
2
This isn't the most elegant solution; if someone calls the function and passes in a parameter it will override the default, which probably isn't what you want.
If you just want a quick and dirty way to get the results, that will work. If you're doing something more complicated it might be better to factor it out into a class like S. Lott mentioned.
EDIT: Renamed the dictionary so it wouldn't hide the builtin dict as per the comment below.
Personally, I like the idea of the global statement. It doesn't introduce a global variable but states that a local identifier actually refers to one in the global namespace.
d = dict()
l = list()
def foo(bar, baz):
global d
global l
l.append(bar, baz)
d[bar] = baz
In python 3.0 there is also a "nonlocal" statement.