Hello, On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 12:42:32 -0700 Glenn Linderman <v+pyt...@g.nevcal.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/2014 7:50 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > Le 07/06/2014 09:25, R. David Murray a écrit : > >> On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 19:50:57 +0100, Chris Withers > >> <ch...@simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > >>> I guess I could duck-type it based on the _fields attribute but > >>> that feels implicit and fragile. > >>> > >>> What do you guys suggest? > >> > >> I seem to remember a previous discussion that concluded that duck > >> typing based on _fields was the way to go. (It's a public API, > >> despite the _, due to name-tuple's attribute namespacing issues.) > > > > There could be many third-party classes with a _fields member, so > > that sounds rather fragile. > > There doesn't seem to be any technical reason barring the addition > > of a common base class for namedtuples. > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. > > A common base class sounds like a good idea, to me, at a minimum, to > help identify all the namedtuple derivatives. I'm perplexed - isn't "tuple" such common base class? And checking for both "tuple" base class and "_fields" member will identify it with ~same probability as a check for special base type (because it's fair to say that if someone *both* subclassed a builtin type and add _fields member, then they wanted it to be treated as namedtuple). [] -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.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
