Christopher,
I've found myself doing the same thing. You could do something like this:
blah = type('Struct', (), {})()
blah.some_field = xI think I'd only do this if I needed to construct objects at runtime based on information that I don't have at compile time, since the two lines of code for your empty class would probably be more recognizable to more people.
If this usage of type() strikes anyone as inappropriate please let me know, because I really don't know. :)
Christopher J. Bottaro wrote:
I find myself doing the following very often:
class Struct: pass ... blah = Struct() blah.some_field = x blah.other_field = y ...
Is there a better way to do this? Is this considered bad programming practice? I don't like using tuples (or lists) because I'd rather use symbolic names, rather than numeric subscripts. Also, I don't like having to declare the empty Struct class everytime I want to do this (which is very often).
Feedback is appreciated, thanks.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
