Isaac Morland added the comment:
I want a meaningful name to appear in debugging output generated by repr() or
str(), not just _ all over the place. I just don't want to specifically come
up with the meaningful name myself.
Right now I pass in the same generated name ('__'.join (field_names)) to the
constructor, but this means I need to repeat that logic in any other similar
application, and I would have to put in special handling if any of my attribute
names required renaming.
I would rather be explicit that I'm not providing a specific name. With your
'_' suggestion it looks like a magic value - why '_'? By specifying None, it's
obvious at the call point that I'm explicitly declining to provide a name, and
then the code generates a semi-meaningful name automatically.
Also, please note that I moved the place where typename is assigned to after
the part where it handles the rename stuff, so the generated names
automatically incorporate a suitable default and remain valid identifiers.
I'm having trouble seeing the downside here. I'm adding one "is None" check
and one line of code to the existing procedure. I can't believe I'm the only
person who has wanted to skip making up a type name but still wanted something
vaguely meaningful in debug output.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue31085>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
