On 6/8/2014 3:37 PM, dw+python-dev at hmmz.org wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 03:13:55PM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
>
>>> The current implementation is also *really* easy to understand,
>>> while writing out the dynamic type creation explicitly would likely
>>> require much deeper knowledge of the type machinery to follow.
>
>> As proof that it's harder to understand, here's an example of that
>> dynamically creating functions and types:
>
> Probably I'm missing something, but there's a much simpler non-exec
> approach, something like:
>
> class _NamedTuple(...):
> ...
>
> def namedtuple(name, fields):
> cls = tuple(name, (_NamedTuple,), {
> '_fields': fields.split()
> })
> for i, field_name in enumerate(cls._fields):
> prop = property(functools.partial(_NamedTuple.__getitem__, i)
> functools.partial(_NamedTuple.__setitem__, i))
> setattr(cls, field_name, prop)
> return cls
How would you write _Namedtuple.__new__?
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