__name__ becoming read-write?
anthonybaxter at gmail.com
Mon Aug 23 17:40:29 CEST 2004
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:07:42 GMT, Arthur <ajsiegel at optonline.com> wrote:
> Did I hallucinate something about __name__ becoming read-write?
> Better get my facts straight first....
> But if true that would seem to solve the main objection to:
> the_horrible_name_I _need_to_call=transform(__f)
> And would mean that a byproduct of the PEP318 implementation would go
> 50% toward obviating the need for a PEP318 implementation. At least
> by one measure.
No, it is now read-write, thanks to mwh. I think, though, that you're
misunderstanding the difference between setting a local variable in
the function, called '__name__', and setting the actual __name__ of
the function object.
>>> def foo(): pass
>>> foo.__name__ = 'bar'
>>> def foo():
... __name__ = 'bar'
More information about the Python-list