Nick Coghlan wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
Yes -- help me rally behind my generic object PEP which proposes a Bunch type (probably to be renamed) for the Python standard lib. =)
Did you see the suggestion of 'namespace' as a name?
Yup, it's in the current PEP draft. See the "Open Issues" section:
PEP: XXX Title: Generic Object Data Type Version: $Revision: 1.0 $ Last-Modified: $Date: 2004/11/29 16:00:00 $ Author: Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 29-Nov-2004 Python-Version: 2.5 Post-History: 29-Nov-2004
<SNIP>
Open Issues =========== What should the type be named? Some suggestions include 'Bunch', 'Record', 'Struct' and 'Namespace'.
A quick check of the google groups archive didn't lead me to believe that I'm repeating old suggestions, so: how about 'Bag'?
It's has the small virtue of being short and the great virtue of employing a good metaphor, I think. A (loose enough) bag takes whatever shape you impose on it by the things that you stick into it. If I understand the PEP draft aright, the idea is quite similar -- a python object with no internal structure other than that imposed by what the programmer decides to put into it.
(I'm just a hobbyist, so if this suggestion clashes with some well established use of 'Bag' in CS terminology, well, never mind.)
Best to all,
Brian vdB
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
