[Python-ideas] Changing str(someclass) to return only the class name

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/22/2011 12:35 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Terry Reedy<tjreedy at udel.edu>  wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 8:39 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
>>
>>>     str(module) ==>    module.__name__
>>>     str(func)  ==>    func.__name__
>>>     str(cls)  ==>    "{}.{}".format(cls.__module__, cls.__name__) # See note
>>> below
>>
>> If you do this, then also do
>> str(generator) ==>  generator.__name__
>
> Why?

For printing messages (which I currently do with failing generators), as 
you explained in another post:

"But thinking of str(x) as what gets printed by print(x),
formatted by "{}.format(x)", and "%s" % s, changes things. When I am
printing an object and I have no idea what type it is, I'll use repr()
or "%r"; but when I know I am printing, say, an exception, I think it
would be very nice if print(x) would just print its name."

> Assuming by "generator" you mean the iteror returned by calling a
> generator function (not the generator function itself, which is
> covered by str(func) ==>  func.__name__), the generator has no "name"
> which can be used to retrieve it. The three above (module, function,
> class) all -- typically -- are referenced by variables whose name is
> forced by the syntax (import foo, def foo, class foo). But that does
> not apply to a generator.

Not relevant unless you want to do something like globals()[str(obj)] or 
getattr(namespace, str(obj)).

The .__name__ attribute of generators is just as much forced by syntax 
as for the others, as it is a copy of the parent generator function.

I am currently +0, as I do not mind occasionally typing .__name__, 
although I believe it *is* the only exposed __xxx__ name (outside of 
class statements) in my current code.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy