On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Christian Tismer wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: > ... > > Being able to place them into function attributes means that you have a > > better *model* for how you record these values. Why place them into a > > separate mapping if your intent is to enhance the semantics of a function? > > If the semantics apply to a function, then bind it right there. > > BTW., is then there also a way for the function *itself* > so look into its attributes? If it should be able to take > special care about its attributes, it would be not nice > if it had to know its own name for that? > Some self-like surrogate? Separate problem. Functions can't do that today with their own __doc__ attribute. Feel free to solve this issue, but it is distinct from the attributes-on-functions issue being discussed. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
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