My $0.02 on the entire series of nametuple threads is… there *might* be value
in an immutable namespace type, and a mutable namespace type, but namedtuple’s
promise is that they can be used anywhere a tuple can be used. If passing in
kwargs to create the potential replacement to namedtuple is s
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> It's possible to write builtin types that are truly immutable, and
> there are several examples of that (direct instances of object, tuple
> instances, instances of the builtin numeric types),
Maybe this is an argument for namedtuple to be
On 29 July 2017 at 04:56, Mike Miller wrote:
> Nice. Ok, so there are different dimensions of mutability.
>
> Still, haven't found any "backdoors" to object(), the one I claimed was
> immutable.
It's possible to write builtin types that are truly immutable, and
there are several examples of that
