On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:07 PM, Petr Viktorin <encukou at gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/17/2017 10:31 PM, 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) >> >> Most of the times this is what I really want: quickly returning an >> anonymous tuple with named attributes and nothing else, similarly to >> os.times() & others. [...] >> > > It seems that you want `types.SimpleNamespace(x=1, y=0)`. > That doesn't support indexing (obj[0]). -- Giampaolo - http://grodola.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20170717/2b92d2c7/attachment.html>
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