Le Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:12:02 +0200,
"A.T.Hofkamp" <[email protected]> s'exprima ainsi:
> > If this can't be done but there is a completely different way to
> > achieve a similar result, what is it?
>
> print "abc=", a, b, c
>
> is what I always use.
Well, I do find the OP's demand really sensible. Had the same need (and still
have), esp. for everyday quick debugging. Strangely enough, I also called this
show() and had a need for a kind of "polyShow()", and for a "treeShow()", too...
Actually, python (only) knows the name. There is no implementation issue, I
guess: I would love a builtin (can only be builtin) func, or better a
statement, to do that. May accept only name(s) and raise NameError on wrong
call.
Then, we could insert in code lines like
show(count, result)
instead of eg
print "count:%s, result:%s" %(count,result)
A statement version may be:
show count, result
or why not
? count, result
In the case of a statement, it's much more consistent to require the parameter
list to contain only names.
This would really make my life nicer. It's *so* stupid to be obliged to repeat
the name! And even more when you think python knows it!! And even more when you
realise _you_ have no way to know it, for most objects don't have a __name__
attribute!!!
By the way, for funcs, bound & unbound methods, classes/types, modules, you can
use this attr:
=======
def show(*args):
for arg in args:
try:
print "%s:%r" %(arg.__name__,arg)
except AttributeError:
print "?:%r" % arg
def f():pass
n=1
show(f,n)
==> output ==>
f:<function f at 0xb7e76f7c>
?:1
=======
But this does not bring much, sure...
Denis
------
la vita e estrany
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - [email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
