Eric Snow <ericsnowcurren...@gmail.com> added the comment: > Is this documented in whatsnew?
I'm not sure what has been (none of my patches have done so). > Also, I remember a discussion about making it public or not, but > don’t recall a decision. Amaury brought it up in msg162127. His point was that the type is public in Python, so why not the C API? That's about the extent of the discussion. :) Do you see any harm in making PyNamespace_New() public? > I personally find it bad that we have structseqs for most things, dicts > in PEP 418 get_clock_info return values, and now simplenamespace for > sys.implementation. The use cases are different for the different types. StructSequence/namedtuple provides fixed data structures for structured records. A dict is essentially the opposite: an un-fixed data structure for dynamic namespaces, making no firm promises as to what the future holds. SimpleNamespace fills a similar role to dicts, but offers a higher appearance of stability by virtue of using attributes vs. keys. The problem is that moving from item-access to attribute-access is not a backward-compatible change. That's the big reason why PEP 421 specified the use of an attr-based object. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15003> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
