Re: Why is there no natural syntax for accessing attributes with names not being valid identifiers?

Path	csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path	<rosuav@gmail.com>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.001
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 1.00; 'S': 0.00; 'subject:not': 0.03; 'attribute': 0.07; 'string': 0.09; 'expression:': 0.09; 'literal': 0.09; 'subject:Why': 0.09; 'way:': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; "wouldn't": 0.14; '(code': 0.16; 'advantage.': 0.16; 'dictionary.': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'identifiers': 0.16; 'magic': 0.16; 'notation': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'subject:accessing': 0.16; 'underscores': 0.16; 'do,': 0.16; 'so.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'wed,': 0.18; 'restrictions': 0.19; 'work,': 0.20; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'question': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'dec': 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'asked': 0.31; 'gives': 0.31; 'another': 0.32; 'could': 0.34; 'subject:with': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'done,': 0.36; 'indexed': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'two': 0.37; 'pm,': 0.38; 'though,': 0.39; 'either': 0.39; 'even': 0.60; 'skip:m 50': 0.68; 'subject:there': 0.68; 'special': 0.74; 'golf': 0.84; 'subject:being': 0.84; 'rusi': 0.91; 'was:': 0.91; 'to:none': 0.92; '2013': 0.98
DKIM-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=bE5Cnb/73hk44Yb1k2B1sphg96VpRZevx/6e6UvITlE=; b=IE0dUHkRMA5lxnuHdPK6mCjbdzCRXlWkaHKrhUEGXgUV1Zvr5In7DBxCdGIJjND0XY 04pk9BL6Ye0JD7zeCWV7IVfZCPqmUyCAWwW5R7IvYqRyfYR0k0POSSGRhfhSD/OTt58y lL4j5qrLycoWDZh3xTGxQl6KT35NJP8NvZBEJRY1ahz7GZqwFtmA2cKzEKmsHjv6UVEY RcJ0wi2swRYWc3ZK4mfJUJVzifpiOb6K12yLiLCCP0wgrLMAJ7YJA3G6NFBo22htUhTS PN9IRzex1GHfi94CR5SVwnIGm1vN6Kb4zcn7xwJc2b6/2BVHfqfNzqdgApWCH0OMryNn c2cA==
MIME-Version	1.0
X-Received	by 10.68.236.133 with SMTP id uu5mr16711076pbc.153.1386153194154; Wed, 04 Dec 2013 02:33:14 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To	<549180f1-fb98-4b59-b92f-5beceb1a6fb5@googlegroups.com>
References	<15912943-29a1-4365-b027-7bb8cec447f8@googlegroups.com> <mailman.3527.1386093834.18130.python-list@python.org> <eb15e1a8-49b1-4d55-a864-141efc65394e@googlegroups.com> <17gt99hg615jfm7bdid26185884d2pfdkf@4ax.com> <080d6a56-588b-425f-8968-8f77bc330427@googlegroups.com> <mailman.3546.1386147492.18130.python-list@python.org> <549180f1-fb98-4b59-b92f-5beceb1a6fb5@googlegroups.com>
Date	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:33:14 +1100
Subject	Re: Why is there no natural syntax for accessing attributes with names not being valid identifiers?
From	Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Cc	"python-list@python.org" <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.15
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.3553.1386153202.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	23
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1386153202 news.xs4all.nl 2909 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:58904
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:61007

Show key headers only | View raw

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> OP wants attribute identifiers like outer_fieldset-inner_fieldset-third_field.
> Say I have a python expression:
> obj.outer_fieldset-inner_fieldset-third_field

I don't think so. What the OP asked for was:

my_object.'valid-attribute-name-but-not-valid-identifier'

Or describing it another way: A literal string instead of a token.
This is conceivable, at least, but I don't think it gives any
advantage over a dictionary.

What you could do, though, is create a single object that can be
indexed either with dot notation or as a dictionary. For that to work,
there'd have to be some restrictions (eg no leading underscores - at
very least, __token__ should be special still), but it wouldn't be
hard to do - two magic methods and the job's done, I think; you might
even be able to manage on one. (Code golf challenge, anyone?) Of
course, there's still the question of whether that even is an
advantage.

ChrisA

Thread

csiph-web