empty classes as c structs?

[Steven Bethard]

Michael Spencer wrote:
> I see no problem in repeating the methods, or inheriting the 
> implementation. However, if namespace and bunch are actually different 
> concepts (one with reference semantics, the other with copy), then 
> __repr__ at least would need to be specialized, to highlight the 
> difference.

Yeah, I could certainly see them being separate...  Of course, someone 
else will have to write the PEP for Namespace then.  ;)

> def __ge__(self, other):
>     for attrname in other.__dict__.keys():
>         if not attrname in self.__dict__:
>             return False
>     return True
> 
> I realize that interfaces may be addressed formally by a current PEP, 
> but, even if they are, this "cheap and cheerful" approach appeals to me 
> for duck-typing.
> 
> However, as I think more about this, I realize that I am stretching your 
> concept past its breaking point, and that whatever the merits of this 
> approach, it's not helping you with bunch.  Thanks for knocking the 
> ideas around with me.

My pleasure.  It's good to talk some use-cases, and make sure I cover as 
much as is feasible in the PEP.  I think __ge__ is probably too far out 
from the original intentions, but I'll make sure to write 
Bunch/Namespace to be as inheritance-friendly as possible so that adding 
such behavior by inheriting from Bunch/Namespace should be simple.

Thanks for all your comments!

Steve