On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:34 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> We've been over this before: collections.namedtuple *is* the standard >> library's answer for structured records. > > > And I think it's a really ugly answer, and one that deserves a parallel > that is not a tuple. If this is contentious, I'll write a PEP.
Yes, please. One of the original arguments that delayed the introduction of the collections module was the fear that it would lead to the introduction of tons of subtly different data types, making it substantially harder to choose the right data type for a given application. I see this proposal as the realisation of that fear. Unordered types can be a PITA for testing, for display and for generic serialisation, so I definitely want to see a PEP before we add a new one that basically has its sole reason for existence being "you can iterate over and index the field values in a namedtuple". Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
