Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 527859
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T08:55:38+00:00 2026-05-13T08:55:38+00:00

Closures are an incredibly useful language feature. They let us do clever things that

  • 0

Closures are an incredibly useful language feature. They let us do clever things that would otherwise take a lot of code, and often enable us to write code that is more elegant and more clear. In Python 2.x, closures variable names cannot be rebound; that is, a function defined inside another lexical scope cannot do something like some_var = 'changed!' for variables outside of its local scope. Can someone explain why that is? There have been situations in which I would like to create a closure that rebinds variables in the outer scope, but it wasn’t possible. I realize that in almost all cases (if not all of them), this behavior can be achieved with classes, but it is often not as clean or as elegant. Why can’t I do it with a closure?

Here is an example of a rebinding closure:

def counter():
    count = 0
    def c():
        count += 1
        return count
    return c

This is the current behavior when you call it:

>>> c()
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "<stdin>", line 4, in c
UnboundLocalError: local variable 'count' referenced before assignment

What I’d like it to do instead is this:

>>> c()
1
>>> c()
2
>>> c()
3
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T08:55:38+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 8:55 am

    To expand on Ignacio’s answer:

    def counter():
        count = 0
        def c():
            nonlocal count
            count += 1
            return count
        return c
    
    x = counter()
    print([x(),x(),x()])
    

    gives [1,2,3] in Python 3; invocations of counter() give independent counters. Other solutions – especially using itertools/yield are more idiomatic.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Would some enlighten on the difference of Inner(Private) functions and Closures, as they appear
Functions with closures seem to break when used with eval . (eval {:fn (let
I'm slowly understanding closures more and more, and the following code works. I'm wondering
Lua has a really nice no-parenthesis call syntax that coupled with function closures allow
Why are Javascript bookmarklets wrapped in closures? I wouldn't think someone would put an
Am wrapping my head around JavaScript closures and am at a point where things
combining closures (FCM) and generics, would it be possible to have fully type-safe criteria.
I'm new to closures and have a 'gets me by doing most things' understanding
Languages that have closures, such as Ruby, enable elegant constructs to transform lists. Suppose
Do closures in c# cause code bloat in the generated il? I was told

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.