Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ISE Development <isenntp <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> 'code' object 'function' object
>> ---------------- ------------------------------------
>> co_name: test __qualname__: test
>> co_name: T __qualname__: T
>> co_name: method __qualname__: test.<locals>.T.method
>>
>> The second call corresponds to the class definition and not the call to
>> the constructor (which is in fact a call to 'object.__init__', a C
>> function hence not traced as a 'call' event - I checked this by
>> disassembling the code object).
>
> There's nothing wrong here. That's just the way things are implemented
> internally. This may change in the future without prior notice, so
> you shouldn't rely on it.
>
> If you want to dig more, you have to look at how the hidden function ("T")
> works:
>
>>>> def f():
> ... class T: pass
> ...
>>>> f.__code__.co_consts
> (None, <code object T at 0x7f4d9d0f4a00, file "<stdin>", line 2>, 'T')
>>>> dis.dis(f.__code__.co_consts[1])
> 2 0 LOAD_NAME 0 (__name__)
> 3 STORE_NAME 1 (__module__)
> 6 LOAD_CONST 0 ('f.<locals>.T')
> 9 STORE_NAME 2 (__qualname__)
> 12 LOAD_CONST 1 (None)
> 15 RETURN_VALUE
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
Ok, I accept it's implementation specific. That's fair enough.
Yet wouldn't it make more sense to have the 'T' function '__qualname__'
attribute refer to the defining context, i.e. in the present case,
'test.<locals>.T' (much along the lines of the actual method qualified
names, e.g. 'test.<locals>.T.__init__', and identical to the qualified name
of the actual object if returned by the defining function - see Peter Otten
reply)?
The rationale is that a properly qualified name is easier to interpret than
the current unqualified one. To properly identify the 'T' function if a
'class T' is defined in more than enclosing function requires some
additional complex (and hence error prone) logic as things stand: one has to
examine the previous stack frame.
Effectively, I am not saying the current behaviour is wrong, simply that it
is inconsistent and could be improved. In that context, is it worth an
enhancement request?
-- isedev
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
