> On May 11, 2019, at 11:12 PM, Christopher Barker <python...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 3:26 PM Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com> wrote: > >> It’s a design goal of dataclasses to not be iterable. >> >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0557/#why-not-just-use-namedtuple > > you would know, but that reference talks about why they are not the same as > NamedTuple.
That section mentions why they’re not iterable. Search on “iterable”. > > if dataclasses *were*iterable, they almost certainly wouldn't iterate over > the values alone. That wouldn’t make a difference. The given NT example would still be a problem. > > And NamesTuple was designed to BE tuples -- that is a drop in replacement for > tuples -- so they have the features they have partially for that reason. > > And my toy code actually adds another decorator to make dataclasses iterable, > so it would be a completely optional feature. That approach of adding support for iterability makes sense to me. I’m contemplating adding a “dataclasses_tools” package for some other tools I have. But I’m not sure how this fits in to the asdict discussion. Eric > > All that being said, I'm not actually advocating doing this with dataclasses > -- I'm simply making the point that there are currretly two ways to make > custom class able to be passed in to the dict constructor -- do we need > another? > > -CHB > > > -- > Christopher Barker, PhD > > Python Language Consulting > - Teaching > - Scientific Software Development > - Desktop GUI and Web Development > - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
