On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2012 10:44:59 -0400 > Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> > I wish there was a builtin class >> > >> > class record: >> > pass >> > >> > which can be used to create objects which have only attributes >> > and no methods. >> >> >> I have heard this request now a bazillion times over the years. Why don't >> we have such an empty class sitting somewhere in the stdlib with a >> constructor classmethod to simply return new instances (and if you want to >> get really fancy, optional keyword arguments to update the instance with >> the keys/values passed in)? Is it simply because it's just two lines of >> Python that *everyone* has replicated at some point? > > In this case, it's because sys is a built-in module written in C, and > importing Python code is a no-go.
Something I've remotely considered is an approach like namedtuple takes: define a pure Python template, .format() it, and exec it. However, this is partly a reflection of my lack of familiarity with using the C-API. As well, the only place I've seen this done in the CPython code base is with namedtuple. Consequently, I was planning on taking the normal approach. Should the namedtuple-exec technique be avoided at the C level? -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
