namespaces module (a.k.a. bunch, struct, generic object, etc.) PEP

[Michele Simionato]

Jeremy Bowers <jerf at jerf.org> wrote in message news:<pan.2005.02.10.15.10.26.594432 at jerf.org>...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:56:45 -0700, Steven Bethard wrote:
> 
> > In the "empty classes as c structs?" thread, we've been talking in some
> > detail about my proposed "generic objects" PEP.  Based on a number of
> > suggestions, I'm thinking more and more that instead of a single
> > collections type, I should be proposing a new "namespaces" module instead.
> 
> Context: I've never been excited by this proposal.
> 
> But I am intrigued to note that with a couple of differences, you've now
> converged on a module I've already written for my own use, which I called
> a Registry. I actually subclassed 'dict', added some methods to use
> dotted-access as you describe, and added some methods for accessing and
> initializing a deeper key (basically a "get" that can handle hierarchy)
> and a couple of other things.
> 
> There are worse things for application config storing than a pickled
> Namespace. (Not human readable, but if you don't care about that, as I
> generally don't, it's close to usable.)

FWIW, you can count me about the people who (re)wrote this same thing
(actually with some difference, since I wanted to keep the order, so
I used nested lists instead of nested dictionaries, but the idea was
similar). I would welcome some module in the standard library to store
hierarchical data.

     Michele Simionato