Simon Brunning wrote: > It's not inconcevable that Python could behave that way, it's just > that it would impose an overhead on the 99.999% of Python users who > would have no use for the feature. It's a price not worth paying.
I guess I don't get the problem with the OP's request, either. There is already a name<->identifier mapping in place for objects. You can type the object name and python magically gives you the object by matching the name to the identifier. It would probably be pretty simple to expose the name or names associated with the identifier, if any, via built-in function or method. There would be no extra overhead. There would be no speed hit if you didn't call the function/method. There would be very little implementation expense (I would imagine), as the code that is already in place to do look-ups from the parser to the object map could probably be reused or hooked into. But seeing as it isn't a general-purpose feature, and Steven's function would be sufficient for most cases, I'm not saying it should be a core feature; I'm just saying that I don't see what the big huff is about. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
