object as bunch (WAS Re: End of file)
steven.bethard at gmail.com
Mon Oct 11 18:13:22 CEST 2004
Alex Martelli <aleaxit <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> If an object() could be used as a Bunch I do think it would be
> reasonably common. But it can't, so I insist that its role as
> sentinel/placeholder is the only possibility.
Anyone know what the design goal was that caused object not to be written to
be used as a Bunch?
I'm not suggesting that I'd want to be able to set attributes from outside the
class -- the fact that x23.foo = 23 is an AttributeError if x23 does not have
a foo attribute is a Good Thing, IMHO -- but I can see that a **kwds
constructor like dict() has might be useful:
>>> o = object(foo1=None, foo2=23)
>>> o.foo3 = 2
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
AttributeError: 'object' object has no attribute 'foo3'
If object was a Bunch, you could also set the fields of a class in the call to
>>> class C(object):
... def __init__(self, foo23, foo57=None):
... super(C, self).__init__(foo23=foo23, foo57=foo57)
>>> c = C(1)
Don't know if the fields behavior here really gains you anything, but it would
be another side effect of object being a Bunch.
I have wanted from time to time to have a Bunch object. Of course it's only 3
lines of code to roll your own... But I wouldn't mind hearing about the
reasoning behind making object as it is...
More information about the Python-list