Nick Coghlan wrote:
New builtin:
ntuple(x=1, y=0)
Do we really want this to be a tuple, with ordered fields? If so, what determines the order? If it's the order of the keyword arguments, this means that ntuple(x=1, y=0) and ntuple(y=0, x=1) would give objects with different behaviour. This goes against the usual expectation that keyword arguments of a constructor can be written in any order. That's one of the main benefits of using keyword arguments, that you don't have to remember a specific order for them. If we're going to have such a type, I suggest making it a pure named-fields object without any tuple aspects. In which case "ntuple" wouldn't be the right name for it, and something like "record" or "struct" would be better. Also, building a whole type object for each combination of fields seems like overkill to me. Why not have just one type of object with an attribute referencing a name-to-slot mapping? -- Greg