This should be worked into a PEP, instead of living on as a bunch of python-ideas posts and blogs.

I find the attrs documentation (and Glyph's blog post about it) almost unreadable because of the exalted language -- half the doc seems to be *selling* the library more than *explaining* it. If this style were to become common I would find it a disturbing trend.

But having something alongside NamedTuple that helps you declare classes with mutable attributes using the new PEP 526 syntax (and maybe a few variants) would definitely be useful. Will someone please write a PEP? Very few of the specifics of attrs need be retained (its punny naming choices are too much for the stdlib).


On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Nick Coghlan <> wrote:
On 14 May 2017 at 17:12, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <> wrote:
> Whatever you all propose,
> coming from a java and c++ background, OOP in python is quite cumbersome.
> if you tell that i am not a python guy, then consider that current oop style
> does not reflect python's style of ease and simplicity
> is __init__ really a good syntax choice?

That's a different question, and one with a well-structured third
party solution:

for some ideas on how something like attrs might be adapted to provide
better standard library tooling for more concise and readable class


Nick Coghlan   |   |   Brisbane, Australia
Python-ideas mailing list
Code of Conduct:

--Guido van Rossum (