Skip to main content

How to Confuse _ and locals()["_[1]"]

So, after posting about the exception raising list comprehensions, I got this:
Kevin has left a new comment on your post "How to Add Memory Leaks to Python":

Doesn't '_' only exist in the interactive interpreter?
Kevin has a misunderstanding here in that there is a huge difference between the expressions _ and the locals()["_[1]"]. You might spot why they are so different, or you might not. The second, the one from the list comprehension, is unable to be accessed by name directly. You can only get at it via the locals() and globals() functions, depending on your scope (locals() always works right after the LC in question, though). The name is intentially something that, if tried to resolve as an actual name in the scope, won't find the object in question. Python will look for _ and then do a subscript lookup on key 1 on it. This is completely different than actually looking up the name _[1] in the dictionary where names are stored and grabbing up the value its bound to.

So, Kevin, your question can be answered in that its irrelevant, because we aren't dealing with _ at all. Also, open your profile so I can respond to you directly, next time.

Comments

Kevin Dangoor said…
Hey, thanks for the clarification.

I had actually tried it by taking your program and running it through Python directly. I made the mistake of not putting a try: except: around that, so it never got to my print globals()['_[1]'] statement. Oops!

I should've realized that the ['_[1]'] was just an ordinary dictionary lookup and not something weird and magical (though this key's existence is a little weird and magical!)

There are actually quite a few unexpected ways in which Python programs can leak memory. Thanks for bringing up one more!

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…