Home Original page

[Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

Michel Desmoulin desmoulinmichel at gmail.com
Mon Jul 24 12:46:53 EDT 2017 

Le 24/07/2017 à 16:12, Nick Coghlan a écrit :
> On 22 July 2017 at 01:18, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
>> Honestly I would like to declare the bare (x=1, y=0) proposal dead. Let's
>> encourage the use of objects rather than tuples (named or otherwise) for
>> most data exchanges. I know of a large codebase that uses dicts instead of
>> objects, and it's a mess. I expect the bare ntuple to encourage the same
>> chaos.

This is the people working on big code base talking.

Remember, Python is not just for Google and Dropbox.

We have thousands of user just being sysadmin, mathematicians, bankers,
analysts, that just want a quick way to make a record. They don't want
nor need a class. Dictionaries and collections.namedtuple are verbose
and so they just used regular tuples.

They don't use mypy either so having a type would be moot for them.

In many languages we have the opposite problem: people using classes as
a container for everything. It makes things very complicated with little
value.

Python actually has a good balance here. Yes, Python doesn't have
pattern matching witch makes it harder to check if a nested data
structure match the desired schema but all in all, the
bloat/expressiveness equilibrium is quite nice.

A litteral namedtuple would allow a clearer way to make a quick and
simple record.

> 
> That sounds sensible to me - given ordered keyword arguments, anything
> that bare syntax could do can be done with a new builtin instead, and
> be inherently more self-documenting as a result.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list