17 Feb
2013
17 Feb
'13
12:41 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Larry Hastings
On 02/14/2013 05:19 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
A recurring suggestion for collections.namedtuple is that it would be nice to be able to define them like this [...]
FWIW, I think namedtuple is overused. Not that there's anything innately wrong with namedtuple; it's just that I think too many types are iterable which shouldn't be. (Nobody unpacks the stat_result anymore, that's like 1995 man.) I suggest people use types.SimpleNamespace unless iterability is specifically required.
Ironically the types.SimpleNamespace documentation says: "However, for a structured record type use namedtuple() instead." -gps