On Jun 13, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
I see a new function in (python 2.6) lib/collections called namedtuple. This is a great function. I can see many places in my code where this will be immensely useful.I have a couple of suggestions. My first suggestion is to use self.__class__.__name__ instead of the hard-coded typename in __repr__, so that subclasses don't have to override these methods just to use the correct name. def __repr__(self): return self.__class__.__name__ + '(%(reprtxt)s)' %% self \n
I feel like a large point of NamedTuple is for those cases where you need a small object with some attributes _without_ creating a subclass. Useful for mocks, for example, or when you need to trick a function into dealing with a quick proxy or stub. If a large point is not needing to create a class but instead creating a cheap object, should it be a good idea to then subclass the very thing that was intended to help you avoid creating a class in the first place? What do you gain subclassing it?
However, I always think a repr reflecting a type name should reflect the correct type, so I'm not disagreeing on that point. But, just don't use concating :-)
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
