Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 25 July 2017 at 11:57, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Having such a builtin implictly create and cache new namedtuple type > definitions so the end user doesn't need to care about pre-declaring > them is still fine, and remains the most straightforward way of > building a capability

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 25 July 2017 at 02:46, Michel Desmoulin wrote: > Le 24/07/2017 à 16:12, Nick Coghlan a écrit : >> On 22 July 2017 at 01:18, Guido van Rossum wrote: >>> Honestly I would like to declare the bare (x=1, y=0) proposal dead. Let's >>> encourage the use

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Chris Barker
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > 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

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Paul Moore
On 24 July 2017 at 17:37, Michel Desmoulin 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

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread C Anthony Risinger
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > C Anthony Risinger writes: > > > A tuple is a tuple is a tuple. No types. Just convenient accessors. > > That's not possible, though. A *tuple* is an immutable collection > indexed by the

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple redesign goals

2017-07-24 Thread Michel Desmoulin
Le 24/07/2017 à 13:45, Ethan Furman a écrit : > [redirecting back to list] > > On 07/24/2017 04:19 AM, Michel Desmoulin wrote: >> Le 24/07/2017 à 13:02, Ethan Furman a écrit : >>> On 07/23/2017 10:47 AM, Michel Desmoulin wrote: > I'm not sure why everybody have such a grip on the type.

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Chris Barker
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 6:31 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > I'm not sure why everybody have such a grip on the type. > > > > When we use regular tuples, noone care, it's all tuples, no matter what. > > Some people care. > > This is one of the serious disadvantages of

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Michel Desmoulin
Le 24/07/2017 à 16:12, Nick Coghlan a écrit : > On 22 July 2017 at 01:18, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> 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

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Michel Desmoulin
Le 24/07/2017 à 15:31, Steven D'Aprano a écrit : > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 07:47:16PM +0200, Michel Desmoulin wrote: > >> I'm not sure why everybody have such a grip on the type. >> >> When we use regular tuples, noone care, it's all tuples, no matter what. > > Some people care. > > This is

Re: [Python-ideas] HTTP compression support for http.server

2017-07-24 Thread Chris Angelico
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Chris Barker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Pierre Quentel > wrote: >> - if so, should it be supported by default ? It is the case in the PR, >> where a number of content types, eg text/html, are

Re: [Python-ideas] HTTP compression support for http.server

2017-07-24 Thread Chris Barker
The opinion of some random guy on the list... On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Pierre Quentel wrote: > I have been suggested to require feedback from core devs : > - should HTTP compression be supported ? > Yes. You are quite right, it's pretty standard stuff these

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Nick Coghlan
On 22 July 2017 at 01:18, Guido van Rossum wrote: > 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 >

Re: [Python-ideas] namedtuple literals [Was: RE a new namedtuple]

2017-07-24 Thread Steven D'Aprano
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 07:47:16PM +0200, Michel Desmoulin wrote: > I'm not sure why everybody have such a grip on the type. > > When we use regular tuples, noone care, it's all tuples, no matter what. Some people care. This is one of the serious disadvantages of ordinary tuples as a

[Python-ideas] namedtuple redesign goals

2017-07-24 Thread Ethan Furman
On 07/23/2017 10:47 AM, Michel Desmoulin wrote: > I'm not sure why everybody have such a grip on the type. If I understand the goal of "a new namedtuple" correctly, it is not to come up with yet another namedtuple type -- it is to make the existing collections.namedtuple a faster experience,