John Hagen added the comment:
@Ethan, I hadn't tried to use the aenum AutoNumberEnum that way, but I agree
with Barry that I like it. To me that is the ideal case we should shoot for as
I think it's the best* long term and deviate only if practical concerns prevent
it.
So I am +1 for empty member assignment and if that is rejected, +1 for = ()
assignment as at least it is a big step forward. I feel both solutions already
have some "magic", so would lean toward the one that leads to the least amount
of boilerplate.
As for the empty assignment, I have played around with something similar before
and will throw out one con for it: static analyzers get really confused.
PyCharm, for example, thinks this is has unresolved references in it:
class Color(AutoNumberEnum):
red
green
blue
But the counter point is that if this is in the stdlib, static analyzer authors
are much more likely to add a special case for it than if in a "non-official"
third party package (PyCharm example:
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/PY-19150).
Another piece of evidence to support inclusion is that Python already provides
specialized Enum subclasses (like IntEnum). I've written a lot of Python code
that uses Enums and haven't personally needed IntEnum yet, but would have used
an AutoEnum many, many times.
* I am assuming here that a true "enum" keyword is out of the question at this
point for Python, which would probably be even better.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue26988>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
