Jason R. Coombs
jaraco at jaraco.com
Fri Jun 13 18:28:45 CEST 2008
I also agree with your point on concatting. I used that syntax because it
seemed more clear, given the already awkward syntax.
And while the original motivation of namedtuple might be to avoid having to
make a class or subclass, subclasses have already emerged even within the
standard library (see lib/urlparse for a prime example of extending the
From: Calvin Spealman [mailto:ironfroggy at socialserve.com]
Sent: Friday, 13 June, 2008 12:17
To: Jason R. Coombs
Cc: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: namedtuple suggestions
On Jun 13, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
> I see a new function in (python 2.6) lib/collections called
> namedtuple. This is a great function. I can see many places in my
> code where this will be immensely useful.
> I have a couple of suggestions.
> My first suggestion is to use self.__class__.__name__ instead of the
> hard-coded typename in __repr__, so that subclasses don't have to
> override these methods just to use the correct name.
> def __repr__(self):
> return self.__class__.__name__ + '(%(reprtxt)s)' %% self
I feel like a large point of NamedTuple is for those cases where you
need a small object with some attributes _without_ creating a
subclass. Useful for mocks, for example, or when you need to trick a
function into dealing with a quick proxy or stub. If a large point is
not needing to create a class but instead creating a cheap object,
should it be a good idea to then subclass the very thing that was
intended to help you avoid creating a class in the first place? What
do you gain subclassing it?
However, I always think a repr reflecting a type name should reflect
the correct type, so I'm not disagreeing on that point. But, just
don't use concating :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6580 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Python-list