A few days ago, I asked about getting the original declared name of a function or method, and learned about the __name__ attribute.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.python/bHvcuXgvdfA Of course, I have used __name__ for years in the common expression "if __name__ == "__main__") to determine whether a particular module is being run or merely imported. But until recently, I never went deeper than that. I just created an object using collections.namedtuple, and was surprised to discover that it didn't have a __name__ -- even though something that behaves like __name__ is clearly accessible and printable. Here's some minimal Python 3.3.2 code and output: ================================================= from collections import namedtuple MyNamedTupleClass = namedtuple("ANamedTuple", ("foo", "bar")) nt = MyNamedTupleClass(1,2) print(nt) print(type(nt)) # print(nt.__name__) # this would raise an AttributeError print(type(nt).__name__) # this is the desired output ================================================= ANamedTuple(foo=1, bar=2) <class '__main__.ANamedTuple'> ANamedTuple ================================================= As you can see, I snooped around in the object's type. I found that the type, rather than the object itself, had the __name__ I was seeking. I then read the Python docs concerning __name__ and found that this attribute is restricted to callable objects. This leads me to ask two questions: 1. WHY do only callable objects get a __name__? A __name__ would seem to be a useful feature for other types. Clearly, whoever implemented namedtuple thought it was useful to retain and display that information as a part of the string representation of the namedtuple (and I agree). 2. If I created a superclass of namedtuple which exposed type(namedtuple).__name__ in the namespace of the namedtuple itself, would I be doing anything harmful? Thanks as always for your insights. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
