On 07/19/2017 05:12 AM, Steve D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:39 am, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Um... well, people want to do all sorts of wild and wacky things... but why > would you define a named tuple with *private* fields? Especially since that > privateness isn't enforced when you access the items by position.
Maybe the user wants to match a naming convention that already exists? I am doing this in code I'm writing at the moment. I'm not using namedtuples, but if I were it would be nice if I could match the conventions from earlier. > In any case, the namedtuple API prohibits that, so it isn't an option. Of course the API could have been different. I'm not saying I think that private fields should be allowed, but there certainly are valid use cases. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
