debatem1 at gmail.com
Tue May 5 09:12:40 CEST 2009
On May 5, 2:08 am, Steven D'Aprano
<ste... at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:54:50 -0400, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > bearophileH... at lycos.com wrote:
> >> Another possible syntax:
> >> def fact(n):
> >> return 1 if n <= 1 else n * return(n - 1)
> >> But I guess most people don't see this problem as important&common
> >> enough to justify changing the language.
> > Actually, I would like a way to refer to the current function from
> > inside a function. but I would like support in the language, so that
> > the compiler patched the code after the function object is created to
> > directly refer to the function object (or can the code object call the
> > code object?) without any name lookup at all.
> I don't know about avoiding name lookup, that smacks of deepest black
> magic, and Python doesn't usually do that. It does however do parlour
> tricks like `__name__` and `self`, suggests a solution.
> I propose a small piece of sugar. When a function is entered, Python
> creates an ordinary local name in the function's local namespace, and
> binds the function itself to that name. Two possibilities for the name
> are `this` or `__this__`, analogous to `self` in methods and `__name__`
> in modules.
> If there is any support for this, I propose to send the following (long)
> post to python-ideas. Feedback, corrections and suggestions welcome.
I'm not all that in favor of this, but I think I've got another use
for you at http://code.activestate.com/recipes/576731/. The functions
written to use it would be a lot more standard looking at least.
More information about the Python-list