On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 1:53 AM Ricky Teachey <ri...@teachey.org> wrote: > > From other thread: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:19 AM Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:11 PM Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: >> > Still think that "object()" should be writable since this seems like an >> > arbitrary restriction (+SimpleNamespace is no builtin and at least I >> > would use object() for fast PoCs or dirty hackery). But I guess there's >> > been discussion around this already. >> > >> >> It can't, because subclasses of object would then ALSO be writable, >> and that would break a lot of things. Also, a lot of use-cases for >> object() just need sentinels, with no attributes, so this would cost >> them a lot of efficiency. >> >> Using SimpleNamespace is the best way to do this, and maybe there's a >> good argument for making it a builtin (or at least giving it a shorter >> name), but changing object would be problematic. >> >> ChrisA > > > I would personally love for SimpleNamespace to get a shorter name and become > a built-in. >
Okay. Let's start bikeshedding. If SimpleNamespace were to become a builtin, what should its name be? It needs to be short (obviously), but not TOO short, and it needs to be at least somewhat descriptive, and it needs to not cause confusion with "object". Ideally, it should get a name that's unlikely to conflict with names already in frequent use. * namespace * ns * Thing * dump * plunkit I'm not a fan of any of those, but let's see how inspired other people are :) ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/VLBT4CSR4K2ZGHSECL5W3HUDO4R37LKK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
