Could you do something like this?
class attrdict(dict):
def __getattr__(self, attr):
if self.has_key(attr):
return self[attr]
else:
message = "'attrdict' object has no attribute '%s'" % attr
raise AttributeError, message
If you have a dict item with the same name as a method in the class, you
won't be able to get to it using syntax sugar, though.
It doesn't seem that the syntax sugar saves you much typing anyway
(a.foo vs. a['foo']), but perhaps it seems nicer in some aesthetic sense.
- Andrew Coffman
Alex Martelli wrote:
> MonkeeSage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mar 2, 9:25 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote:
>>
>>>The problem is mostly that, given an instance a of attrdict, whether you
>>>can call (e.g.) a.update(foo) depends on whether you ever set
>>>a['update'], making the whole program extremely fragile -- a very high
>>>price to pay for some modest amount of syntax sugar.
>>
>>How about something like...
>>
>>class attrdict(dict):
>> def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
>> dict.__init__(self, *args, **kwargs)
>> for k, v in self.items():
>> dict.__setattr__(self, str(k), v)
>> def __setitem__(self, k, v):
>> dict.__setitem__(self, k, v)
>> dict.__setattr__(self, str(k), v)
>> __setattr__ = __setitem__
>
>
> Same problem: after x=attrdict(), x.update(foo) will work for a while,
> then suddenly stop working after some innocuous loop such as:
> for bah in yech: x[bah] = 23
> when one of the items in yech just happens to be the word 'update'
> (similar issues with words such as 'get', 'pop', 'clear', etc, etc).
>
> Miscegenation between attributes and items *inevitably* sucks.
>
>
> Alex
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
