A Dimecres 28 Juliol 2004 15:59, Gerard Vermeulen va escriure:
Two points:
1. This is true for vanilla Python but not for IPython-0.6.2: You see, the completion mechanism of ipython recognizes d['Francesc'] as an integer.
Ok. That's nice. IPython is more powerful than I realized :)
2. If one accepts that a "field_name" can be used as an attribute, one must be able to say:
record.field_name ( == record.field("field_name") )
and (since recordArray[32] returns a record) also:
recordArray[32].field_name
and not
recordArray[32].cols.field_name (sorry, I abhor this)
Mmm, maybe are you suggesting that the records.Record class had all its methods starting by a reserved prefix (like "_" or better, "_v_" for attrs and "_f_" for methods), and forbid that field names would start by these prefixes so that no collision problems would occur with field names?. Well, in such a case adopting this convention for records.Record objects would be far more feasible than doing the same for records.RecArray objects just because the former has very few attrs and methods. I think it's a good idea overall.
Anyway, as Russell suggested, I don't like recordArray["column"][32], because it would be unnecessary (you can get same result using recordArray[column_idx][32]).
Thank you for this little slip, you mean recordArray["column"][32] is recordArray[32][column_idx], isn't it?
Uh, my bad. I was (badly) trying to express the same than Russell Owen on a message dated from 20th July: """ I think recarray[field name] is too easily confused with recarray[index] and is unnecessary. """
I think that we agree that recordArray.cols["column"] is better than recordArray["column"], but I don't see why recordArray.cols["column"] is better than the original recordArray.field("column").
Good question. Me neither. You are proposing just keeping recordArray.cols.column as the only way to access columns?
PS: after reading the above, there may be a case to accept only indexing which can be read from left to right, so recordArray[32].field_name is OK, but recordArray.field_name[32] is not.
Sorry, I don't see the point here (it is most probably my fault given the hours I'm writing this :(. May you elaborate that? Cheers, -- Francesc Alted