empty classes as c structs?

[Brian van den Broek]

Steven Bethard said unto the world upon 2005-02-05 14:05:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
> 
>> Steven Bethard wrote:
>>
>>> Yes -- help me rally behind my generic object PEP which proposes a 
>>> Bunch type (probably to be renamed) for the Python standard lib. =)
>>
>>
>> Did you see the suggestion of 'namespace' as a name?
> 
> 
> Yup, it's in the current PEP draft.  See the "Open Issues" section:
> 
> 
> PEP: XXX
> Title: Generic Object Data Type
> Version: $Revision: 1.0 $
> Last-Modified: $Date: 2004/11/29 16:00:00 $
> Author: Steven Bethard <steven.bethard at gmail.com>
> Status: Draft
> Type: Standards Track
> Content-Type: text/x-rst
> Created: 29-Nov-2004
> Python-Version: 2.5
> Post-History: 29-Nov-2004

<SNIP>

> Open Issues
> ===========
> What should the type be named?  Some suggestions include 'Bunch',
> 'Record', 'Struct' and 'Namespace'.

A quick check of the google groups archive didn't lead me to believe 
that I'm repeating old suggestions, so: how about 'Bag'?

It's has the small virtue of being short and the great virtue of 
employing a good metaphor, I think. A (loose enough) bag takes 
whatever shape you impose on it by the things that you stick into it. 
If I understand the PEP draft aright, the idea is quite similar -- a 
python object with no internal structure other than that imposed by 
what the programmer decides to put into it.

(I'm just a hobbyist, so if this suggestion clashes with some well 
established use of 'Bag' in CS terminology, well, never mind.)

Best to all,

Brian vdB