On 24 July 2017 at 17:37, Michel Desmoulin <desmoulinmic...@gmail.com> wrote: > You are in the wrong thread. This thread is specifically about > namedtupels literal.
In which case, did you not see Guido's post "Honestly I would like to declare the bare (x=1, y=0) proposal dead."? The namedtuple literal proposal that started this thread is no longer an option, so can we move on? Preferably by dropping the whole idea - no-one has to my mind offered any sort of "replacement namedtuple" proposal that can't be implemented as a 3rd party library on PyPI *except* the (x=1, y=0) syntax proposal, and I see no justification for adding a *fourth* implementation of this type of object in the stdlib (which means any proposal would have to include deprecation of at least one of namedtuple, structseq or types.SimpleNamespace). The only remaining discussion on the table that I'm aware of is how we implement a more efficient version of the stdlib namedtuple class (and there's not much of that to be discussed here - implementation details can be thrashed out on the tracker issue). Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
