On 2010-03-26 07:49:02 -0700, kj said:
What's the word on using "classes as namespaces"? E.g.
class _cfg(object):
spam = 1
jambon = 3
huevos = 2
breakfast = (_cfg.spam, _cfg.jambon, _cfg.huevos)
Granted, this is not the "intended use" for classes, and therefore
could be viewed as a misuse ("that's what dictionaries are for",
etc.). But other than this somewhat academic objection[*], I really
can see no problem with using classes in this way.
On the contrary, this is the intended use of classes. Or at least, one
of them. A class *is* a namespace, albeit one that you must address
explicitly unlike the local and global namespaces which are usually
implicit.
That said...
[*] My own subjective dislike for the widespread practice of using
triple quotes to comment out code is formally similar to this one
("the 'intended use' for triple-quoting is not to comment out code",
etc.). Here I find myself on the opposite side of the purist/pragmatic
divide. Hmmm.
What?!
Where do you get this "widespread practice"? You mentioned that before
when you last posted about that and I forgot to comment. I've never
seen it.
In the 110k lines of in-house code I maintain, we don't use it once; we
have somewhere around 300k lines of third-party code from a wide range
of sources, and although I haven't reviewed it all by any means, I
regularly have to peek over it and I never seen triple quoted
"comments".
Hell, I almost never see commented -code-. Code should only be
commented while fiddling or debugging. Once fiddlng is done, dead code
should be removed.
I'm sure it -happens- every once in awhile, but.. why? Who uses editors
that can't block comment/uncomment anymore? :(
--
--S
... p.s: change the ".invalid" to ".com" in email address to reply privately.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
