I make this suggestion in trepidation, given that Guido called a halt on the Great Naming Debate, but it seems that a short, neutral name with data connotations previously not a part of many popular subsystems is required.
I therefore propose "row", which is sufficiently neutral to avoid most current opposition and yet a common field-oriented mechanism for accessing units of retrieved data by name. regards Steve Steve Holden On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: > Thanks for the PEP! :) > > I like the naming. ;) Though, I would like to add to Michel's argument in > favor of a base class. > > > On 11.09.2017 08:38, Michel Desmoulin wrote: > >> - I read Guido talking about some base class as alternative to the >>>> generator version, but don't see it in the PEP. Is it still considered ? >>>> >>> I'm going to put some words in explaining why I don't want to use base >>> classes (I don't think it buys you anything). Do you have a reason for >>> preferring base classes? >>> >> Not preferring, but having it as an alternative. Mainly for 2 reasons: >> >> 1 - data classes allow one to type in classes very quickly, let's >> harvest the benefit from that. >> >> Typing a decorator in a shell is much less comfortable than using >> inheritance. Same thing about IDE: all current ones have snippet with >> auto-switch to the class parents on tab. >> >> All in all, if you are doing exploratory programming, and thus >> disposable code, which data classes are fantastic for, inheritance will >> keep you in the flow. >> >> 2 - it will help sell the data classes >> >> I train a lot of people to Python each year. I never have to explain >> classes to people with any kind of programming background. I _always_ >> have to explain decorators. >> >> People are not used to it, and even kind fear it for quite some time. >> >> Inheritance however, is familiar, and will not only push people to use >> data classes more, but also will let them do less mistakes: they know >> the danger of parent ordering, but not the ones of decorators ordering. >> > > 3) - the order of base classes can arranged appropriately > > In our day-to-day work, we use mixins and cooperative multiple inheritance > a lot. > So, having dataclasses as a base class or a mixin would be great! :) > > Combined with 1) and 2), I am much in favor of having dataclasses as base > class/mixin than as a decorator. > What are the benefits of the decorator? Maybe both is possible? > > Cheers, > Sven > > > PS: @Michel good observation 1). Typing decorators in shell is annoying. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/steve% > 40holdenweb.com >
_______________________________________________ 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
