On 2017-09-12 21:05, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> It's ironic that some people dislike "data classes" because these are regular
> classes, not just for data, while others are proposing alternative names that
> emphasize the data container aspect. So "data classes" splits the difference, by
> referring to both data and classes.
True that these data-classes will be a superset of a traditional record. But,
we already have objects and inheritance for those use cases. The data-class is
meant to be used primarily like a record, so why not name it that way?
Almost everything is extensible in Python; that shouldn't prevent focused names,
should it?
> Let's bikeshed about something else.
An elegant name can make the difference between another obscure module thrown in
the stdlib to be never seen again and one that gets used every day. Which is
more intuitive?
from collections import record
from dataclass import dataclass
Would the language be as nice if "object" was named an "instanceclass?" Or
perhaps the "requests" module could have been named "httpcall." Much of the
reluctance to use the attrs module is about its weird naming.
Due to the fact that this is a simple, potentially ubiquitous enhancement an
elegant name is important. "For humans," or something, haha.
-Mike
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