4 ms·
> it was a lot of work Thus the desire for types.SimpleNamespace as others have noted. Though we might have better design choices today than yesterday, there'
by xapata 9y ago
> it was a lot of work
Thus the desire for types.SimpleNamespace as others have noted.
Though we might have better design choices today than yesterday, there's also a downside to code churn. Case in point the annoyance of trying to modernize threading from isAlive to is_alive.
Even when writing new code, it's often wiser to stick with a "worse" standard than to use a new design.
- eesmith 9y agoI agree with all of that (with the proviso that the SimpleNamespace documentation doesn't make it sound desirable). I disagree with raymondh's statement that "that is a norm in the standard library that predates named tuples."