On 17.05.2017 23:29, Ivan Levkivskyi wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 20:09, Sven R. Kunze <email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
class Foo(dictlike, tuplelike, simpleobject): attribute1: User attribute2: Blog attribute3: list def __my_dunder__(self): ...
As I understand this is more or less what is proposed,
Are you sure? Could you point me to the relevant messages where mixins are mentioned as a key part of the proposal? All I could find are message using the @decorator syntaxes.
We've been working with mixins successfully for years now and I can tell you that it's "just" a clever way of refactoring existing code in order to make it more accessible to other modules *based on use-cases*.
So, the best person to tell what pieces to factor out would be Stephan using his 4-point list. And of course other people using NamedTuple but frequently refactoring to "attr" or own class because NamedTuple just is too much (defines too much implicitly).
Another benefit is that NamedTuple itself would become a mere set of base class and mixins.
the idea is to write it into a PEP and consider API/corner cases/implementation/etc.
Who's writing it?