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

[Ron Adam]

On Sat, 2011-10-22 at 13:32 -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Thinking of str(x) as an API to get a certain value would lead there,
> yes. 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. Just like
> print(None) prints 'None', it would make all the sense in the world if
> print(ZeroDivisionError) printed 'ZeroDivisionError', and
> print(type(42)) printed 'int'. 

I like the part where you say... 

"But thinking of str(x) as what gets printed by print(x)"

Which means (to me) that it should be what ever makes the most sense for
that particular type or object.  For some things, it makes sense to
return __name__, while for other things, it makes sense to return
something else.

There isn't a problem unless we are trying to apply a rule to
*everything*.

Also it should be pointed out that not all objects have a __name__
attribute.

Cheers,
   Ron