R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: But an object to which you can assign attributes but which has no methods can be useful in a number of contexts. It's not a glorified dict, because attribute-style access is different from dict-style access. The main place I have used this (creating my own trivial object subclass) is for passing a duck-typed object in to a function that only needs to access certain attributes to get the correct quack.
Why prevent us from using an object instance for this if there's not a functional reason for it? Python is supposed to be a Consulting Adults language, after all :). That said, I suspect that giving object a dict would break various assumptions in the core code, and I have no problem with creating that trivial subclass. It does have the advantage of providing a more meaningful name in error messages. ---------- nosy: +r.david.murray _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7659> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
