On Apr 17, 5:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Apr 17, 10:54 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On 17 avr, 17:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Out of sheer curiosity, why do you need thirty (hand-specified and
> > dutifully commented) names to the same constant object if you know
> > there will always be only one object?
>
> I'm building a web server. The many variables are names of header
> fields. One part of the code looks like this (or at least I'd like it
> to):
>
> class RequestHeadersManager:
>
> # General header fields
> Cache_Control = \
> Connection = \
> Date = \
> Pragma = \
> Trailer = \
> Transfer_Encoding = \
> Upgrade = \
> Via = \
> Warning = \
>
> # Request header fields
> Accept = \
> Accept_Charset = \
> Accept_Encoding = \
> Accept_Language = \
> Authorization = \
> ...
>
> Etc etc etc. At the end they'll all be assign to None. Then, when
> initialized, __init__() will the the string of headers, parse them,
> and use those variables shown above to assign to the header values. Of
> course a normal request won't include all of those headers, so the
> others will remain None. That's what I want.
Why not do something like:
class RequestHeadersManager:
def __init__(self, string):
self._fields = {}
# Populate self.fields with fields defined in 'string'
def __getitem__(self, fieldname):
return self._fields.get(fieldname, None)
This way you don't need to prebind all possible fields to None, and a
field is accessible by its actual name, which should be easier to
remember than an identifier derived from a field name. Moreover you
can more easily do some group manipulation of fields (e.g. print them
all
def print_fields(self):
for name, value in self._fields.iteritems():
print "%s: %s" % (name, value)
)
--
Arnaud
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
