On 03/14/2011 10:02 PM, James Mills wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Terry Reedy<tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
How would that work if you had a field named "replace"? I think
Raymond's current design is as good as it's going to get.
'as_dict' is an unlikely fieldname. 're_place' is too, but that just shift
the '_' from '_replace'. No gain. I might prefer _asdict to _as_dict, but
not enough to change.
Probably a stupid idea (sorry) but one could just
make asdict() and replace() public methods
with the caveat that developers not use those
as field names.
The field names are not always under direct control of the developer,
such as when they are database column names. Not that using _replace
completely gets rid of this problem, but I agree with Raymond's decision
that a field name can be any valid identifier not starting with an
underscore. It's the simplest thing for the developer using namedtuple.
Eric.
_______________________________________________
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
