Stephen Hansen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au
<mailto:st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au>> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:59:41 -0800, Muhammad Alkarouri wrote:
> What is the simplest way to access the attributes of a function from
> inside it, other than using its explicit name? In a function like f
Not built-in.
> I am guessing the next question will be: should I really care? It
just
> feels like there should be a way, but I am not able to verbalise
a valid
> one at the moment, sorry.
I completely agree with you. It is a wart that functions are only
able to
refer to themselves by name, because if the name changes, things break.
I agree its slightly... in-elegant, or sub-optimal, but I'm not sure I
want to call it a *wart*. If one calls it a wart, there might be
inspiration to fix it.
And this sounds like a precursor to making "self" non-explicit, and I
*really* like my explicit self. :)
Then again, I have been slightly bruised by this sub-optimal situation
before.
I tried to do a function using a frame hack to get the information
easily, but failed. My long years of avoiding frame hacks like the
plague have left me deficient. :(
Does this mean that Python needs, say, __function__ (and perhaps also
__module__)?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
