Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick Craig-Wood wrote: > > Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I promised I'd put together a PEP for a 'generic object' data type for > >> Python 2.5 that allows one to replace __getitem__ style access with > >> dotted-attribute style access (without declaring another class). Any > >> comments would be appreciated! > > > > My experience from using this is that whenever I used Hash(), I found > > that later on in the refinement of the conversion it became its own > > class. > > This has also generally been my experience, though I'm not sure it's as > true for the XML DOM to Bunch translation. Did you use Hash() in the > same way for hierarchical data?
Hash() got nested yes, but not in a general purpose structure like your XML example. > > > So my take on the matter is that this encourages perl style > > programming (just ram it in a hash, and write lots of functions acting > > on it) rather than creating a specific class for the job which is dead > > easy in python anyway and to which you can attach methods etc. > > You'll note that the (pre-)PEP explicitly notes that this object is > intended only for use when no methods are associated with the attributes: > > "When no methods are to be associated with the attribute-value mappings, > declaring a new class can be overkill." > > I do understand your point though -- people might not use Bunch in the > way it's intended. Of course, those same people can already do the same > thing with a dict instead (e.g. write a bunch of functions to handle a > certain type of dict). If someone wants to write Perl in Python, > there's not much we can really do to stop them... No there isn't ;-) The above does make it a lot more convenient though blob['foo'] is rather difficult to type compared to blob.foo! -- Nick Craig-Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
