add a __getattr__ to Records so it looks cleaner #13

Activity

1. 1st1 commented on Jul 27, 2016

   

   1st1

   on Jul 27, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   We considered having __getattr__ instead of __getitem__ but decided against that, because:

   1. There are a few methods in the Record object, such as .keys(), .values() etc. We don't want field names to clash with Record's API.
   2. Having both __getattr__ and __getitem__ doing the same thing feels non-pythonic.

   ❤️React with ❤️1Reacted by racinette
2. 1st1

   added

   question

   on Jul 27, 2016
3. runfalk commented on Aug 9, 2016

   

   runfalk

   on Aug 9, 2016

   More actions

   Couldn't this and #17 be solved using a way of specifying an alternative Record class, or factory function, to use? This way the user could even use namedtuples if so desired for memory efficiency.
4. 1st1 commented on Aug 9, 2016

   

   1st1

   on Aug 9, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   Record is as memory efficient as Python's tuple (it's implemented in pure C). It's also faster than namedtuple to instantiate, since we have a freelist for it.
5. 1st1 commented on Oct 20, 2016

   

   1st1

   on Oct 20, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   I don't think we'll implement this. Adding __getattr__ will preclude us from adding methods/APIs to the Record class, so let's keep the status quo.
6. 1st1

   closed this as completedon Oct 20, 2016