Re: Pythonic style

From	Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Subject	Re: Pythonic style
Date	2016-04-28 13:23 +1000
Message-ID	<mailman.164.1461813821.32212.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <CALwzidn0SN5yax3bfmTPDTxBvfr+bnVNzeUe3dZYrS9ji2WCtw@mail.gmail.com> <572166FA.3020108@icloud.com> <85y47yjxj5.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <57217E73.9040907@icloud.com> <85twimju18.fsf@benfinney.id.au>

Show all headers | View raw

Christopher Reimer <christopher_reimer@icloud.com> writes:

> In short,  my original code before I turned it into a separate
> dictionary. *sigh*

No, I think that misses the points that were being made. The discussion
you're talking about was *not* to say “attribute access is better than
dictionary access”, or vice versa. Each is good for its purpose.

Rather, the discussion was to drive home the point that in Python those
are *two distinct concepts*, and you need to not conflate them.

If you want items in a mapping, explicitly use a Python ‘dict’ instance.
If you want attributes that describe an object, explicitly use
attributes of that object. Deliberately choose which one makes more
sense.

-- 
 \         “The double standard that exempts religious activities from |
  `\       almost all standards of accountability should be dismantled |
_o__)                   once and for all.” —Daniel Dennett, 2010-01-12 |
Ben Finney

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Pythonic style Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-04-28 13:23 +1000
  Re: Pythonic style Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-04-28 15:31 +1000

csiph-web