Let's all please take a time out from the naming discussion. On Sep 14, 2017 11:15 AM, "Stefan Krah" <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:06:15AM -0700, Mike Miller wrote: > > On 2017-09-14 10:45, Stefan Krah wrote: > > >I'd expect something like a C struct or an ML record. > > > > Struct is taken, and your second example is record. > > *If* the name were collections.record, I'd expect collections.record to > be something like a C struct or an ML record. I'm NOT proposing "record". > > > > > from dataclass import dataclass > > > > > >This is more intuitive, since the PEP example also has attached methods > > >like total_cost(). I don't think this is really common for records. > > > > Every class can be extended, does that mean they can't be given > appropriate names? > > A class is not a record. This brief conversation already convinced me that > "record" is a bad name for the proposed construct. > > > > Stefan Krah > > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ > guido%40python.org >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
