Alex Martelli wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather have a 3.0 keyword referring to "the current
> object" (module for module toplevel code, class for classbody toplevel
> code, function for code within a function) -- say for the sake of
> argument the keyword is 'current'; this would allow current.__name__ to
> have the obvious meaning, and would also allow a few more neat things
> (such as natural access to current.__doc__).
That was my thought too, that what is really desired is a *obvious* way
to get a dependable reference to the current function as you describe here.
A quick experiment... with an obvious result:
>>>> def foo(): print foo.__name__
> ...
>>>> foo()
> foo
>>>> boo = foo
>>>> boo()
> foo
>>>> boo.__name__
> 'foo'
>>>> foo = None
>>>> boo()
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
> File "<stdin>", line 1, in foo
> AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute '__name__'
A "Current" key word would fix this. Or possibly "This" which would be
short for "This object".
This may also relate to suggestions to reduce the need for having self
in the argument list of methods. So if a keyword "This" could mean this
method or function, then "Self" could mean this class. Hmmm, methods
that use "Self" in this way might run into problems, but I havn't had
enough coffee to think it though. ;-)
Cheers,
Ron
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
