[petsc-dev] script.py

[Matthew Knepley]

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:50:40 -0500, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jed Brown <jed at 59a2.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:29:57 -0500, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Okay, whatever 'yuckiness' is here is imposed on us by the threading
> > > > package.  I think what is confusing you guys is the reprocessing of
> > > > output, since Satish likes it cleaned up. The 'else' branch where
> > > > Barry added code is actually the success branch since
> thread.isAlive()
> > > > is false, meaning it completed. We reprocess the output and
> > > > return. The status and error have already been set during the run()
> > > > call. Its this call that makes us us globals for these variables. Its
> > > > the Python equiv of a closure.
> > >
> > > You can close over the present scope without using globals.  As a crude
> > > example,
> > >
> > >  def foo(): x[:] = [4,5,6]    # x = [4,5,6] would assign to a new local
> > >  x = [1,2]
> > >  foo()                        # same effect if you create and run a
> thread
> > > here
> > >  print x                      # [4,5,6]
> > >
> >
> > That is what I thought, but it did not work until I made them global.
>
> You have to put them in a list/hash/etc.  For example, if the x[:] is
> just replaced with x, then it will create a new object.  You have to
> bind the variable from the enclosing scope.


Doesn't global do exactly this?

  Matt


>
> Jed

-- 
What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
lead.
-- Norbert Wiener
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20100314/b8de33cf/attachment.html>