Good points, thanks for reply.
> Or do you want to check that the expression can be evaluated at run time?
> You could achieve that by simply writing
> a.method
Yes, the point is that it would be checked for legality of expression itself.
Whether to check if it actually evaluates without an error or not would both
work. I see pros and cons in both cases. Maybe not evaluating is better as
evaluation can always be checked separately if needed and eventually will be
checked on actual usage anyway.
> As for the example in your first post:
> var = 710
> variable_name = [k for k, v in locals().items() if v == 710][0]
> print("Your variable name is " + variable_name)
>
> it does "work", but it doesn't make much sense with Python's semantics. You
> could have two identifiers bound to the same object; which one you got hold
> of would be essentially random.
Yes, if `==` was replaced by `is`. Currently it is even more random as it would
return the first one which evaluates __eq__() positively.
That's exactly why I started this. This was to illustrate that I could not find
any robust way to do it.
DG.
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/O4UIFJQ7IYR2UZWYLNAQOOXQFJJNRXVT/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
