[Python-ideas] Give generators a name?

[Guido van Rossum]

Sounds fine with me. Have you cooked up a patch yet so we can see how
complex the change is, whether it breaks anything, etc.?

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> I have 2 related proposals:
>
> 1. Give generators a .__name__ attribute that is the same as their curent
> (3.0a5) .gi_code.co_name subattribute.  just as funct.__name__ is
> func.__code__.co_name.
>
> My reason is, I expect, much the same as that for func.__name__.  I am
> using the generator name (for bad-iterator-output messages in a test
> function) and would prefer to get it through a cross-implementation
> 'public' interface' rather than a cPython internal  implementation detail
> (which I understand code object to be).  I am otherwise trying to avoid
> using cPython internals.
>
> (Is there any plan to change the gi_* attributes the way the func_*
> attributes were?)
>
> 2. Whether or not 1 is adopted, add the name to the representation:
>  <gfuncname generator object as..> or <generator object gfuncname at ..>
>
> Conceptually, I see a generator function as an abbreviated version of a
> iterator class, with most of the boilerplate removed, that defines a
> subclass of the generator class.  So I think the subclass name should be
> part of its representation.
>
> Terry Jan Reedy
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>



-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)