[Python-ideas] Give generators a name?

[Georg Brandl]

A patch suggestion is at <http://bugs.python.org/issue2863>.

Georg

Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
>