On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Alireza Rafiei
I'm not sure whether this idea has been discussed before or not, so I apologize in advanced if that's the case.
Consider the behavior:
f = lambda: True f.__name__ '<lambda>' x = f x.__name__ '<lambda>'
I'm arguing the behavior above is too brittle/limited and, considering that the name of the attribute is `__name__`, not entirely consistent with Python's AST. Consider:
f = lambda: True x = f
At the first line, an ast.Assign would be created whose target is an ast.Name whose `id` is `f`. At the second line, an ast.Assign would be created whose target is an ast.Name whose `id` is `x`.
The __name__ of a function has nothing to do with an Assign node, which is simply assigning a value to something. For instance, if you do:
f = "hello"
you wouldn't expect the string "hello" to have a __name__ - it's just a string. And a lambda function normally won't be assigned to anything. You use lambda when there isn't any name:
do_stuff(lambda q: q * 2 + 1)
and you use def when you want to assign it to a name:
def f(): return True
By the time the Assign operation gets performed, the function object - with all of its attributes, including __name__ - has been completely created. I'm not sure what your proposal would do to these kinds of situations, but it shouldn't be modifying the assigned object. ChrisA