Thinking about this more, I think the main obstacle to use of
SimpleNamespace isn't the name, it's its the location. No one is going
to look in the types module for something like this. Why not just put SimpleNamespace in the
collections module?
THIS I completely agree with! I absolutely do not think this needs a built-in. But I also find that I've nearly never used SimpleNamespace; and 95% of the reason I don't is because of where it lives. Very commonly, I think about what particular collection is most relevant for my data. And if it's not a set, list, or dict, I nearly always look in `collections`. Looking in `types` feels just weird, and it probably has slipped my mind sometimes even when it would be the best choice.
OK, yes occasionally I look in `queue`, which is collection-like. And dataclasses, of course (which I thought should have gone in `collections`). Or if I want some extra useful behaviors, maybe I use dbm or sqlite3, which are kinda collections too (or NumPy, Pandas, xarray, etc). But looking in `types` for a collection feels very wrong.
The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the
not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse
the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born,
become abortifacients against new conceptions.