>
> Per your wish, Eric, the glorious successor of Q() ... named M():
>
> >>> def M(*vals):
> ... import sys
> ... import inspect
> ... caller = sys._getframe(1)
> ... call = inspect.stack()[1].code_context[0]
> ... _, call = call.split('M(')
> ... call = call.strip()[:-1]
> ... names = [name.strip() for name in call.split(',')]
> ... dct = {}
> ... for name in names:
> ... dct[name] = eval(name, globals(), caller.f_locals)
> ... return dct
> ...
> >>> x, y, z = range(3)
> >>> M(x, y, z)
> {'x': 0, 'y': 1, 'z': 2}
>
> OK, it's a little bit fragile in assuming the function must be called M
> rather than trying to derive its name. And maybe my string version of
> finding the several args could be made more robust. But anyone is welcome
> to improve it, and the proof of concept shows that's all we need.
> Basically, a "dict-builder from local names" is perfectly amenable to
> writing as a Python function... and we don't need to inspect the underlying
> source code the way I believe Alex' sorcery module does (other parts of it
> might need that, but not this).
>
I can lay out all the issues with this if you want me to, but after my
previous email I don't think I have to. I'm just wondering why you say it
doesn't need to inspect the underlying source code. That's what
`code_context` is and that's obviously the only place where a string like
`'M('` could be found, unless you want to uncompile bytecode (which is not
impossible either, but it's an additional mess).
_______________________________________________
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/4WQWZCC22L3E42L4SAJP3IYOMHEI3RHE/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
