>>>>> "KPY" == Ka-Ping Yee <ping@lfw.org> writes: KPY> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> This is one of the reasons why I didn't want to add this to the >> 2.1 release at such a late point. I have no easy way to verify >> that this is always true, and in fact I have no idea what >> inspect.stack()[1][3] means. :-( KPY> Would you have preferred to write KPY> sys._getframe().f_back.f_code.co_name KPY> ? It's the same thing. It's certainly clearer that inspect.stack()[1][3]. Does the existence of the inspect module imply that we need to maintain its interface? If we did, then we have some weird limits on the order of things in stack frames. Jeremy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4