Licheng Fang wrote:
> Python is supposed to be readable, but after programming in Python for
> a while I find my Python programs can be more obfuscated than their C/C
> ++ counterparts sometimes. Part of the reason is that with
> heterogeneous lists/tuples at hand, I tend to stuff many things into
> the list and *assume* a structure of the list or tuple, instead of
> declaring them explicitly as one will do with C structs. So, what used
> to be
>
> struct nameval {
> char * name;
> int val;
> } a;
>
> a.name = ...
> a.val = ...
>
> becomes cryptic
>
> a[0] = ...
> a[1] = ...
>
> Python Tutorial says an empty class can be used to do this. But if
> namespaces are implemented as dicts, wouldn't it incur much overhead
> if one defines empty classes as such for some very frequently used
> data structures of the program?
>
> Any elegant solutions?
You can use __slots__ to make objects consume less memory and have
slightly better attribute-access performance. Classes for objects that
need such performance tweaks should start like::
class A(object):
__slots__ = 'name', 'val'
The recipe below fills in the obvious __init__ method for such classes
so that the above is pretty much all you need to write:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/502237
STeVe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
