> But I see what I think you and others have been trying to explain to me:
> that the expression some_object.__name__, if it existed, would indeed be
> schizophrenic since it would be an attribute of the object, not the name(s)
> to which it is bound.
The hypothetical feature might also, if designed badly, break simple
things like checking for equality. e.g. say that we do:
x = # ... some value
y = copy.deepcopy(x)
Would x == y? From my understanding, if the object were automatically
associating a __name__, it should not. And that would be weird. :P
This is not to say that what you're asking for is unreasonable! It's
just that Python doesn't do it, and introducing such a feature in
Python would have large implications in terms of what it means, not to
mention how it might affect the runtime.
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - [email protected]
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
