Steve Jorgensen wrote: > I feel like this proposal is not quite right, but maybe the idea will provoke > some > thoughts about something similar that -would- be right. > The idea first came to me upon realizing that since namedtuple classes > have no special base class beyond tuple, there should be some way of > identifying them as being primarily structural, even though they are > instances of > tuple which, in other cases, usually means something that is primarily > sequential. > It is easily possible to identify a namedtuple by checking to see whether it > has an > _asdict method, but it might be nice to formalize the way that struct-like > objects are identified in a virtual base class and be something that had > application > beyond just checking whether a tuple is a namedtuple.
Along with this idea, maybe `namedtuple` should became a type (not just a callable as it is now) for classes produced by calling `namedtuple()`. The `namedtuple` type could in turn inherit from `tuple` and from `Record` (or `Struct` or whatever name is decided for that). _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/N7VQSW4IOWJYNVEDTO7ECOQCMMAGCXSB/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
