__repr__ policy problem: should module be prefixed to output?

Remco Gerlich scarblac at pino.selwerd.nl
Fri Dec 15 16:57:20 EST 2000

Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote in comp.lang.python:
> "Per Kraulis" <per at sbc.su.se> wrote in message
> news:3A3A3A6D.2C3B1A91 at sbc.su.se...
> > However, I have realized that there is a policy problem. Should __repr__
> > add the module name as prefix to the output string, or not? Or is there
> > some other solution?
> I have exactly the same problem in gmpy (I do supply a portable
> binary picklable string, but also a repr output that is eval'uable
> to restore something 'close to' the original).

Personally I think that this problem isn't that important. Pick one,
be consistent, and it'll be ok. If you start thinking about this sort of
thing a lot, nothing will get done because there are important choices

I went with the module name in __repr__, because of the tiny chance that
I have two classes with the same name in different modules and I want to
be able to tell them apart in the interpreter. But then, without the
module name, the strings are shorter. It doesn't matter much.

Remco Gerlich

More information about the Python-list mailing list