RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 17 16:46:48 EDT 2017 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-July/148614.html

On 2017-07-17 21:31, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote:
> I completely agree. I love namedtuples but I've never been too happy 
> about the additional overhead vs. plain tuples (both for creation and 
> attribute access times), to the point that I explicitly avoid to use 
> them in certain circumstances (e.g. a busy loop) and only for public 
> end-user APIs returning multiple values.
> 
> To be entirely honest, I'm not even sure why they need to be forcefully 
> declared upfront in the first place, instead of just having a 
> first-class function (builtin?) written in C:
> 
>  >>> ntuple(x=1, y=0)
> (x=1, y=0)
> 
> ...or even a literal as in:
> 
>  >>> (x=1, y=0)
> (x=1, y=0)
> 
[snip]

I know it's a bit early to bikeshed, but shouldn't that be:

 >>> (x: 1, y: 0)
(x: 1, y: 0)

instead if it's a display/literal?

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2017-July/148614.html below:

[Python-Dev] Impact of Namedtuple on startup time