Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > > I think it's reasonable to make a name a part of functions, classes and > > modules because they may often be involved in tracebacks (in case of > > uncaught errors): to me, it makes sense to let an error-diagnosing > > tracebacks display packages, modules, classes and functions/methods > > involved in the chain of calls leading to the point of error _by name_. > > But it would be even nicer if the traceback could point back to the > exact location in the source code where the function definition > occurred, and that wouldn't need any name for the function. I believe a name is a useful "summary" or "conceptual handle" for a thing, saving us from having to describe/analyze/recognize it in more detail each and every time. "Need" may be too strong a word, but I maintain there's _usefulness_ (and reasonableness, and good common sense) in the naming. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
