问题
The python documentation states "execfile() cannot be used reliably to modify a function’s locals." on the page http://docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#execfile
Can anyone provide any further details on this statement? The documentation is fairly minimal. The statement seems very contradictory to "If both dictionaries are omitted, the expression is executed in the environment where execfile() is called." which is also in the documentation. Is there a special case when excecfile is used within a function then execfile is then acting similar to a function in that it creates a new scoping level?
If I use execfile in a function such as
def testfun():
execfile('thefile.py',globals())
def testfun2():
print a
and there are objects created by the commands in 'thefile.py' (such as the object 'a'), how do I know if they are going to be local objects to testfun or global objects? So, in the function testfun2, 'a' will appear to be a global? If I omit globals() from the execfile statement, can anyone give a more detailed explanation why objects created by commands in 'thefile.py' are not available to 'testfun'?
回答1:
In Python, the way names are looked up is highly optimized inside functions. One of the side effects is that the mapping returned by locals() gives you a copy of the local names inside a function, and altering that mapping does not actually influence the function:
def foo():
a = 'spam'
locals()['a'] = 'ham'
print(a) # prints 'spam'
Internally, Python uses the LOAD_FAST opcode to look up the a name in the current frame by index, instead of the slower LOAD_NAME, which would look for a local name (by name), then in the globals() mapping if not found in the first.
The python compiler can only emit LOAD_FAST opcodes for local names that are known at compile time; but if you allow the locals() to directly influence a functions' locals then you cannot know all the local names ahead of time. Nested functions using scoped names (free variables) complicates matters some more.
In Python 2, you can force the compiler to switch off the optimizations and use LOAD_NAME always by using an exec statement in the function:
def foo():
a = 'spam'
exec 'a == a' # a noop, but just the presence of `exec` is important
locals()['a'] = 'ham'
print(a) # prints 'ham'
In Python 3, exec has been replaced by exec() and the work-around is gone. In Python 3 all functions are optimized.
And if you didn't follow all this, that's fine too, but that is why the documentation glosses over this a little. It is all due to an implementation detail of the CPython compiler and interpreter that most Python users do not need to understand; all you need to know that using locals() to change local names in a function does not work, usually.
回答2:
Locals are kind of weird in Python. Regular locals are generally accessed by index, not by name, in the bytecode (as this is faster), but this means that Python has to know all the local variables at compile time. And that means you can't add new ones at runtime.
Now, if you use exec in a function, in Python 2.x, Python knows not to do this and falls back to the slower method of accessing local variables by name, and you can make new ones programmatically. (This trick was removed in Python 3.) You'd think Python would also do this for execfile(), but it doesn't, because exec is a statement and execfile() is a function call, and the name execfile might not refer to the built-in function at runtime (it can be reassigned, after all).
What will happen in your example function? Well, try it and find out! As the documentation for execfile states, if you don't pass in a locals dict, the dict you pass in as globals will be used. You pass in globals() (your module's real global variables) so if it assigns to a, then a becomes a global.
Now you might try something like this:
def testfun():
execfile('thefile.py')
def testfun2():
print a
return testfun2
exec ""
The exec statement at the end forces testfun() to use the old-style name-based local variables. It doesn't even have to be executed, as it is not here; it just has to be in the function somewhere.
But this doesn't work either, because the name-based locals don't support nesting functions with free variables (a in this case). That functionality also requires Python know all the local variables at function definition time. You can't even define the above function—Python won't let you.
In short, trying to deal with local variables programmatically is a pain and the documentation is correct: execfile() cannot reliably be used to modify a function's locals.
A better solution, probably, is to just import the file as a module. You can do this within the function, then access values in the module the usual way.
def testfun():
import thefile
print thefile.a
If you won't know the name of the file to be imported until runtime, you can use __import__ instead. Also, you may need to modify sys.path to make sure the directory you want to import from is first in the path (and put it back afterward, probably).
You can also just pass in your own dictionary to execfile and afterward, access the variables from the executed file using myVarsDict['a'] and so on.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16065468/execfile-cannot-be-used-reliably-to-modify-a-function-s-locals