On May 4, 11:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano <ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > I propose a small piece of sugar. When a function is entered, Python > creates an ordinary local name in the function's local namespace, and > binds the function itself to that name. Two possibilities for the name > are `this` or `__this__`, analogous to `self` in methods and `__name__` > in modules. > > If there is any support for this, I propose to send the following (long) > post to python-ideas. Feedback, corrections and suggestions welcome. >
I totally support this proposal. I've definitely wasted time in the past trying to invent my own workarounds for the use cases you describe. Obviously, there will be some bikeshed debates on __this__ vs. __name__ vs. __func__, etc. I don't have an opinion there, just want *something* handy for introspection, DRYness, etc. A more interesting question is whether __this__ would just always be there (that's my vote), or if you should have to apply a special decorator to get it (which I oppose, but I can see some merits). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
