namespaces module (a.k.a. bunch, struct, generic object, etc.) PEP

[Jeremy Bowers]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:23:58 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> This is one of the reasons why Steven's idea of switching to proposing a
> new module is a good one. It then provides a natural location for any
> future extensions of the idea such as Records (i.e. namespaces with a
> defined set of legal fields) and NamedTuples and NamedLists (i.e.
> namespaces with a defined field order)

I'm not very good at reading Guido's mind, but it might be worth feeling
out whether mentioning this will improve the chances of this passing or
not, because while I do not know, can not know, and am not trying to
predict, it is at least possible that Guido may feel as I have been: That
this proposal on its own isn't that exciting, but as the foundation of
some *other* standard functionality as described it might be very good. In
that case that should be emphasized.

See, now it still doesn't make me jump up and down because I can write
what I need fairly easily, but it would be a great boon to beginners or
people who just want to do work and re-write this again, but slightly
differently, and would also provide some standardization where otherwise
we all roll our not-quite-similar-enough implementations, which would help
us read each other's code.

Y'all are bringing me around, slowly but surely :-)