[Python-ideas] History on proposals for Macros?

[Ron Adam]

On 03/30/2015 04:54 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> That skips over all the problems with your first version and immediately
> gets you your second version, and it avoids most of the problems there
> as well. The only thing you're missing in the end is the ability to
> convert functions to blocks and vice-versa at runtime. That's the part
> that causes all the problems, and I don't think is actually necessary
> for what you want (but if I'm wrong, I guess never mind:).

I don't think its necessary either and converting function blocks to an 
insertable code block isn't what I had in mind.  If you can run a function 
block in specified frame, then it isn't needed.  Just grab the current 
frame, execute the function block with it, as a function.

Of course the programmer would be responsible for making sure the names in 
the code block are available in the name space used with it.  Name errors 
should propagate normally.

      result = call_with_frame(function_code_object, sys.getframe(0))

But I think it will still runs into the name issues you mentioned earlier.

And as you also mentioned it's quite possible someone has already done a 
call_with_frame function.  I just haven't found it yet.

Cheers,
    Ron