On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:58:45 -0500, Bill Mill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<folded> >> >> Or something else depending on how many references you made to the >> value 8. > >Yes, this is true, assuming that he looks for keys with the value 8 in >locals(). It's not necessarily true if there's a way to ask python >what the name of John is, which is what the OP was asking. I just >wanted you to explicitly say what you were implying so that we could >discuss it. ok, :) I should have explained my position better the first time. I was a bit too brief. Unfortunately, while class's and functions have a __name__ attribute, simple data types do not. I've been playing around with a way to explore name spaces, but once you drop into class's, and functions, the references can lead you into an endless loops. > >Yup, I meant to say that I disagree that mixing data with program code >is *always* a bad idea. I had a "d'oh!" moment when I hit send. > I do that more often than I like. Maybe I should have said 'is often' not a good idea. > >Naturally, I wasn't suggesting that anyone (shudder) do things like >your examples of poor code. I had a much smaller point, about which I >was not clear: Sometimes, it is handy to mix code and data. There >*are* legitimate uses of reflection, eval, and exec. I did't think you would suggest that, but I thought it was a good chance to clarify what I meant the first time. If you missed my point, then so did others. An obvious example is sometimes the best way to demonstrate a basic concept. There are good uses for eval and exec. Ultimately it's up to the programmer to decide the best use of the tools. I just like to keep my tools(code), and my parts(data) in separate bins. ;) Ron -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
