Pythonic style involves lots of lightweight classes (for me)

[metaperl]

I find it arduous to type dictionary['key'] and also feel that any data
I create for a program deserves to have its operations tied to it. As a
result, I often create lots of lightweight classes. Here's a small
example:


vlc = '/Applications/VLC.app/Contents/MacOS/VLC'

class song(object):
def __init__(self, title, url):
self.title = title
self.url = url



urls = [
song(title='bre ath',
url='mms://ra.colo.idt.net/ginsburgh/eng/med/breath.mp3'),
song(title='wak ing',
url= 'mms://ra.colo.idt.net/ginsburgh/eng/med/modeh.mp3')
]

for url in urls:
print url.title


..... The above program started out as a list of dictionaries, but I
like the current approach much better.

[Andrea Griffini]

Re: Pythonic style involves lots of lightweight classes (for me)

metaperl wrote:

.... The above program started out as a list of dictionaries, but I
like the current approach much better.

There is even a common idiom for this...

class Record(object):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.__dict__.u pdate(kwargs)

This way you can use

user = Record(name="An drea Griffini", email="agriff@t in.it")

and then access the fields using user.name syntax

HTH
Andrea

[bayerj]

Re: Pythonic style involves lots of lightweight classes (for me)

Hi,

I think that tuples are the best and simplest approach for small
structures.

>>songs = [("Paranoid", "http://..."), ("Christian Woman", "http://...")]
>>for title, url in songs:

.... print "%s: %s" % (title, url)
....
Paranoid: http://...
Christian Woman: http://...

I think that python's unpacking and builtin data types very useful. I
prefer it a lot to over-object-oriented-programming.