python at mrabarnett.plus.com
Wed Feb 10 18:23:36 CET 2010
Stephen Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> <steve at remove-this-cybersource.com.au
> <mailto:steve at remove-this-cybersource.com.au>> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:59:41 -0800, Muhammad Alkarouri wrote:
> > What is the simplest way to access the attributes of a function from
> > inside it, other than using its explicit name? In a function like f
> Not built-in.
> > I am guessing the next question will be: should I really care? It
> > feels like there should be a way, but I am not able to verbalise
> a valid
> > one at the moment, sorry.
> I completely agree with you. It is a wart that functions are only
> able to
> refer to themselves by name, because if the name changes, things break.
> I agree its slightly... in-elegant, or sub-optimal, but I'm not sure I
> want to call it a *wart*. If one calls it a wart, there might be
> inspiration to fix it.
> And this sounds like a precursor to making "self" non-explicit, and I
> *really* like my explicit self. :)
> Then again, I have been slightly bruised by this sub-optimal situation
> I tried to do a function using a frame hack to get the information
> easily, but failed. My long years of avoiding frame hacks like the
> plague have left me deficient. :(
Does this mean that Python needs, say, __function__ (and perhaps also
More information about the Python-list