Josiah Carlson wrote: > Larry Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> For new code, I can't think of a single place I'd want to use a >> "NamedTuple" where a "record" wouldn't be arguably more suitable. The >> "NamedTuple" makes sense only for "fixing" old APIs like os.stat. >> > I disagree. > > def add(v1, v2) > return Vector(i+j for i,j in izip(v1,v2)) > > x,y,z = point >
I realize I'm in the minority here, but I prefer to use tuples only as lightweight frozen lists of homogeneous objects. I understand the concept that a tuple is a frozen container of heterogeneous objects referenced by position, it's considered a perfectly Pythonic idiom, it has a long-standing history in mathematical notation... I *get* it, I just don't *agree* with it. Better to make explicit the association of data with its name. x.dingus is simply better than remembering "the ith element of x is the 'dingus'". The examples you cite don't sway me; I'd be perfectly happy to use a positionless "record" that lacked the syntactic shortcuts you suggest. I stand by my assertion above. At least now you know "where I'm coming from", /larry/ _______________________________________________ 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
