"Jonathan Claggett" <jcc.ugm at ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >(Or, you could use a 'grab-bag instance object' -- it
> >does not have to be a module-object; see for example
> >http://www.activestate.com/ASPN/Python/Cookbook/Recipe/52308).
>
> How about improving the Bunch class to allow subscript access to its
> attributes? This makes an instance of Bunch reminiscent of a Javascript
> instance.
Oh, it's easy indeed (just delegate __getitem__ to self.__dict__), but the
resulting confusion between items and attributes seems a strange target
to aim for. If you want a dictionary, it's easy to make one:
> >>> ex = Bunch(salary=10000, rank=5)
Becomes: ex = { 'salary': 1000, 'rank': 5 }
> >>> ex.rank
> 5
> >>> ex['salary']
> 10000
If ex was a dictionary, the latter syntax would be the only allowed one.
What I'm missing is the added-value of allowing both...
> Or is this asking for trouble that I, an affirmed Python newbie, would not
> be aware of? That's the trouble with languages, in addition to the syntax
> rules there are always the undocumented 'good practice' rules :-)
Only applicable 'good practice' rule that I can think of here is not
going out of your way to promote confusion. Maybe I'm missing
something...?
Alex
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4