3 ms·
A lot of your points are solved with attrs. I suggest reading up on it if you haven't already. http://www.attrs.org/en/stable/ http://www.attrs.org/en/stable/
by ericfrederich 9y ago
A lot of your points are solved with attrs. I suggest reading up on it if you haven't already. http://www.attrs.org/en/stable/ http://www.attrs.org/en/stable/
I think organizing / refactoring a bunch of named tuples would be a mess. In one code base I maintain I switched a bunch of namedtuples to attrs classes and the code instantly became more readable / maintainable.
The downside to the namedtuple is that it's a tuple and can be unpacked as one.
for x, y in points:
print x, y
# vs.
for p in points:
print p.x, p.y
# ... now go and add a z to the point class and see what happens to your code.
- m_mueller 9y agoI don't get your point about unpacking yet to be honest. Both your code examples work fine with namedtuples I think. Adding additional attributes is better in the second example, which is why it is to be preferred, but that works with namedtuples as far as I understand.
- maxerickson 9y agoAdding a member to the tuple requires updating all code that unpacks it. Adding an attribute doesn't impact any code that doesn't use the attribute.
- m_mueller 9y agoYes, that's why you usually don't use unpacking for a namedtuple. This works just fine without me adding additional 3rd party packages: > from collections import namedtuple > Point = namedtuple('Point', ['x', 'y']) > points = [Point(3,4), Point(5,2)] > for p in points: > print(p.x, p.y)