What's the best way to minimize the need of run time checks?

[Michael Selik]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 11:01 AM <breamoreboy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 7:09:47 AM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > > If the Python community rallies around this "record" functionality and
> > > takes to it like they took too namedtuple
> >
> > I like namedtuple and I think that it's a feature that they're modified
> > by making a new copy.  I know that has overhead but it's palpably
> > bug-avoidant.  I've used them extensively in some programs and they took
> > a considerable burden off my mind compared to using something like
> > structs or records.
>
> You might find this https://glyph.twistedmatrix.com/2016/08/attrs.html an
> interesting read.
>

I disagree with a few points from that blog post.

1. I don't mind typing so much. I like to be explicit. The attrs library
uses some overly-concise abbreviations. For example, what's the meaning of
``@attrs.s`` or ``attrs.ib``?
2. When inheriting from a namedtuple, I use the same class name for the
base and the child, so my reprs look good.
3. I don't bother to fieldnames.split() when passing fieldnames as a
space-separated string, because the split is unnecessary.
4. I *like* that namedtuple is backwards-compatible with tuples, so that
refactoring from tuples to namedtuples is easy.
5. Inheritance is useful. Sure, there are times it fails, but that's true
for any technique.