On 2006-08-23, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jojoba wrote: >>> And what im saying is that isnt it silly that we need pass an entire >>> namespace, when a much simpler notion would be to have each object know >>> its own name(s) (even if that name doesnt exist). >> >> >> please note: in my above comment, i was completely disregarding any >> notions of added costs that would be incurred to have such a feature, >> and that in fact, such costs might actually nullify any other benefits >> from having such a feature. Purely a what-if idea from a nascent python >> programmer. > > Even from such a point of view, the concept isn't clearly enough defined. > What name would be assigned to the dict below? > > l = [1,2,3] > a = "some_str" > l[0] = {'foo': 'bar'} > > Some immutable objects, such as small integers, exist only once. Would you > assign names to them? They're likely to be completely meaningless. > > When a name goes out of scope, but the object continues to live (e.g. > because it's returned by some function), the name is void.
I'm not so sure about that. Local functions can be returned and they keep their name. Of course it depends on what you mean with the name of an object. Do you mean the variable name or do you mean the __name__ attribute? -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list