[Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Pre-alpha draft for PEP 435 (enum). The name is not important at the moment, as (original) (raw)
Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Sun Feb 24 03:37:57 CET 2013
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Pre-alpha draft for PEP 435 (enum). The name is not important at the moment, as
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Pre-alpha draft for PEP 435 (enum). The name is not important at the moment, as
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 Feb 2013 08:14, "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
I personally think we should skip the bikeshedding over how to avoid repeating names to make the bound name match the definition name (as with def, class, and import). Actually, they do not have to match and in cases, one might want a short bound name for retrieval and a longer definition name for display. I realised last night that "labelled values" might be a better building block than "named values". I'll see if I can find my old python-ideas posts about the concept (although, to be honest, I'm not sure it has ever been elaborated much further than it has in this thread)
Ah, there we go - I created a recipe a couple of years ago showing the basic concept: http://code.activestate.com/recipes/577810-named-values/
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Pre-alpha draft for PEP 435 (enum). The name is not important at the moment, as
- Next message: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] peps: Pre-alpha draft for PEP 435 (enum). The name is not important at the moment, as
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]