On Mar 2, 9:25 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote:
> The problem is mostly that, given an instance a of attrdict, whether you
> can call (e.g.) a.update(foo) depends on whether you ever set
> a['update'], making the whole program extremely fragile -- a very high
> price to pay for some modest amount of syntax sugar.
How about something like...
class attrdict(dict):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
dict.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)
for k, v in self.items():
dict.__setattr__(self, str(k), v)
def __setitem__(self, k, v):
dict.__setitem__(self, k, v)
dict.__setattr__(self, str(k), v)
__setattr__ = __setitem__
Regards,
Jordan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
