On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 3:07 PM Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, the point I attempted to raise earlier: at the language design > level, "How do we make __init__ methods easier to write?" is the > *wrong question* to be asking. It's treating the symptom (writing an > imperative initialiser is repetitive when it comes to field names) > rather than the root cause (writing imperative initialisers is still > part of the baseline recommendation for writing classes, and we don't > offer any supporting infrastructure for avoiding that directly in the > standard library) [...] > Very well put. I also can't help but hope these efforts lead to Python also acquiring better tools for dealing with structured data (instances of classes and enumerations) down the road. Like a Pythonic version of Rust's match, for example. That would be really something.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/