Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IMHO this too easy to accomplish right now to warrant an "official" implementation: class Bunch: pass b = Bunch() b.one, b.two, b.three = 1,2,3 works just fine, depending on the problem I might add a few special operators. For anything more complicated I'd rather write a real class.
... The belief that I gathered from the end of the previous thread discussing this (check last week's python-list I think) was that there were a significant number of people who had wanted a class like this (notably IPython), and more than one of them had rewritten the class a few times.
I've written that class more than a few times myself, and ended up adding operations to print the objects (show the member values), serialize them (don't output any member whose name starts with _), etc.
I think it would be worthwhile to standardize something like this.
For this reason a PEP would have value: if it's rejected, the reasons for its rejection will be recorded for posterity. If it isn't rejected, of course, we get a bunch as part of the included batteries.
Next question: bunch is a cute name, but not very suggestive of purpose. Who can think of a better one?
regards Steve -- http://www.holdenweb.com http://pydish.holdenweb.com Holden Web LLC +1 800 494 3119 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
