Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch a écrit :
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:31:50 +0000, DeveloperX wrote:
>
>> I am trying to figure out how to rewrite the following chunk of code
>> in Python:
>>
>> C source
>> [code]
>> typedef struct PF
>> {
>> int flags;
>> long user;
>> char*filename;
>> unsigned char buffer[MAXBUFFERSIZE];
>> } PF;
>>
>> typedef BLOCK
>> {
>> PF * packdata;
>> } BLOCK;
>>
>> BLOCK* blocks;
>> [/code]
>>
>> My first idea was to create a class for PF and a class for BLOCK, but
>> I got lost somewhere along the lines. :\
>>
>> Python Attempt: Please note that since I can't type TABs online
>> easily, I am using the @ character to represent TABs in the following
>> Python code.
>> [code]
>> class PF:
>> @def __init__(self):
>> @@self.flags, self.user = 0, 0
>> @@self.filename = ''
>> @@self.buffer = []
>>
>> class BLOCK:
>> @def __init__(self):
>> @@self.packdata = []
>>
>> blocks = []
>> [/code]
>>
>> Any Python Gurus out there that can help me?
>
> At a first glance it looks okay but unless we know what you are going to
> do with these data structures it's hard to tell if it is really the best
> "translation".
>
> `PF.buffer` might be better a string
Mmm... We can't tell for sure since we have no use case, but I'm not
sure that the OP wants an immutable object here.
> or an `array.array`.
or a StringIO.
> And is `BLOCK`
> really just a structure with *one* member? Looks a bit odd IMHO.
+1
<OP>
Unless you have behaviours attached to this type, you may as well just
use lists.
</OP>
And while we're at it, Python's conventions are that ALL_UPPER names
denotes (pseudo) constants. For types, the conventions is to use
CantRememberIfItsCamelOrMixedCaseButYouShouldGetTheIdeaByNow.
HTH
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
