On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:19 AM, Victor Stinner <victor.stinner@gmail.com> wrote:
For me, namedtuple was first used to upgrade an old API from returning a tuple to a "named" tuple. There was a hard requirement on backward compatibility: namedtuple API is a superset of the tuple API.
For new code, there is no such backward compatibility issue. If you don't need a type, types.Namespace is a good choice.
Using ns=types.Namespace, you can replace (x=0, y=1) with ns(x=0, y=1). It already works, no syntax change.
*If* someone really wants (x=0, y=1) syntax sugar, I would prefer to get a namespace (no indexed (tuple) API).
It's a minor point, but the main reason I use namedtuple is because it's far easier to get a hashable object than writing one yourself. Namespaces are not hashable. If the (x=0, y=1) sugar is accepted, IMO it should immutable and hashable like tuples/namedtuples. Best, Lucas