> Honestly I would like to declare the bare (x=1, y=0) proposal dead. Let's > encourage the use of objects rather than tuples (named or otherwise) for > most data exchanges. I know of a large codebase that uses dicts instead of > objects, and it's a mess. I expect the bare ntuple to encourage the same > chaos. >
Languages since the original Pascal have had a way to define types by structure. If Python did the same, ntuples with the same structure would be typed "objects" that are not pre-declared. In Python's case, because typing of fields is not required and thus can't be used to hint the structures type, the names and order of fields could be used. Synthesizing a (reserved) type name for (x=1, y=0) should be straight forward. I short, >>> isinstance(x=None, y=None), type((x=1, y=0))) True That can be implemented with namedtuple with some ingenious mangling for the (quasi-anonymous) type name. Equivalence of types by structure is useful, and is very different from the mess that using dicts as records can produce. Cheers, -- Juancarlo *Añez*
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
