PEP: 3130
Title: Access to Current Module/Class/Function
Author: Jim J. Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Status: Rejected
Type: Standards Track
Created: 22-Apr-2007
Python-Version: 3.0
Post-History: 22-Apr-2007


Rejection Notice
================

This PEP is rejected.  It is not clear how it should be
implemented or what the precise semantics should be in edge cases,
and there aren't enough important use cases given.  response has
been lukewarm at best.


Abstract
========

It is common to need a reference to the current module, class,
or function, but there is currently no entirely correct way to
do this.  This PEP proposes adding the keywords ``__module__``,
``__class__``, and ``__function__``.


Rationale for ``__module__``
============================

Many modules export various functions, classes, and other objects,
but will perform additional activities (such as running unit
tests) when run as a script.  The current idiom is to test whether
the module's name has been set to magic value.

::

    if __name__ == "__main__": ...

More complicated introspection requires a module to (attempt to)
import itself.  If importing the expected name actually produces
a different module, there is no good workaround.

::

    # __import__ lets you use a variable, but... it gets more
    # complicated if the module is in a package.
    __import__(__name__)

    # So just go to sys modules... and hope that the module wasn't
    # hidden/removed (perhaps for security), that __name__ wasn't
    # changed, and definitely hope that no other module with the
    # same name is now available.
    class X(object):
        pass

    import sys
    mod = sys.modules[__name__]
    mod = sys.modules[X.__class__.__module__]

Proposal:  Add a ``__module__`` keyword which refers to the module
currently being defined (executed).  (But see open issues.)

::

    # XXX sys.main is still changing as draft progresses.  May
    # really need sys.modules[sys.main]
    if __module__ is sys.main:    # assumes PEP (3122), Cannon
        ...


Rationale for ``__class__``
===========================

Class methods are passed the current instance; from this they can
determine ``self.__class__`` (or cls, for class methods).
Unfortunately, this reference is to the object's actual class,
which may be a subclass of the defining class.  The current
workaround is to repeat the name of the class, and assume that the
name will not be rebound.

::

    class C(B):

        def meth(self):
            super(C, self).meth() # Hope C is never rebound.

    class D(C):

        def meth(self):
            # ?!? issubclass(D,C), so it "works":
            super(C, self).meth()

Proposal: Add a ``__class__`` keyword which refers to the class
currently being defined (executed).  (But see open issues.)

::

    class C(B):
        def meth(self):
            super(__class__, self).meth()

Note that super calls may be further simplified by the "New Super"
PEP (Spealman).  The ``__class__`` (or ``__this_class__``) attribute came
up in attempts to simplify the explanation and/or implementation
of that PEP, but was separated out as an independent decision.

Note that ``__class__`` (or ``__this_class__``) is not quite the same as
the ``__thisclass__`` property on bound super objects.  The existing
``super.__thisclass__`` property refers to the class from which the
Method Resolution Order search begins.  In the above class D, it
would refer to (the current reference of name) C.


Rationale for ``__function__``
==============================

Functions (including methods) often want access to themselves,
usually for a private storage location or true recursion.  While
there are several workarounds, all have their drawbacks.

::

    def counter(_total=[0]):
        # _total shouldn't really appear in the
        # signature at all; the list wrapping and
        # [0] unwrapping obscure the code
        _total[0] += 1
        return _total[0]

    @annotate(total=0)
    def counter():
        # Assume name counter is never rebound:
        counter.total += 1
        return counter.total

    # class exists only to provide storage:
    class _wrap(object):

        __total = 0

        def f(self):
            self.__total += 1
            return self.__total

    # set module attribute to a bound method:
    accum = _wrap().f

    # This function calls "factorial", which should be itself --
    # but the same programming styles that use heavy recursion
    # often have a greater willingness to rebind function names.
    def factorial(n):
        return (n * factorial(n-1) if n else 1)

Proposal: Add a ``__function__`` keyword which refers to the function
(or method) currently being defined (executed).  (But see open
issues.)

::

    @annotate(total=0)
    def counter():
        # Always refers to this function obj:
        __function__.total += 1
        return __function__.total

    def factorial(n):
        return (n * __function__(n-1) if n else 1)


Backwards Compatibility
=======================

While a user could be using these names already, double-underscore
names ( ``__anything__`` ) are explicitly reserved to the interpreter.
It is therefore acceptable to introduce special meaning to these
names within a single feature release.


Implementation
==============

Ideally, these names would be keywords treated specially by the
bytecode compiler.

Guido has suggested [1]_ using a cell variable filled in by the
metaclass.

Michele Simionato has provided a prototype using bytecode hacks [2]_.
This does not require any new bytecode operators; it just
modifies the which specific sequence of existing operators gets
run.


Open Issues
===========

- Are ``__module__``, ``__class__``, and ``__function__`` the right names?  In
  particular, should the names include the word "this", either as
  ``__this_module__``, ``__this_class__``, and ``__this_function__``, (format
  discussed on the python-3000 and python-ideas lists) or as
  ``__thismodule__``, ``__thisclass__``, and ``__thisfunction__`` (inspired
  by, but conflicting with, current usage of super.``__thisclass__``).

- Are all three keywords needed, or should this enhancement be
  limited to a subset of the objects?  Should methods be treated
  separately from other functions?


References
==========

.. [1] Fixing super anyone?  Guido van Rossum
       https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/006671.html

.. [2] Descriptor/Decorator challenge,  Michele Simionato
       http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_frm/thread/a6010c7494871bb1/62a2da68961caeb6?lnk=gst&q=simionato+challenge&rnum=1&hl=en#62a2da68961caeb6


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.
