| From: |
| Guido van Rossum <guido-AT-python.org> |
| To: |
| Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan-AT-gmail.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: PEP 557: Data Classes |
| Date: |
| Tue, 12 Sep 2017 21:05:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID: |
| <CAP7+vJKZKqqxJxv_v2TeaqNZLnJnfdc3FRHmZ4C_CRuBpHC3MA@mail.gmail.com> |
| Cc: |
| Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <chris.barker-AT-noaa.gov>, "python-dev-AT-python.org" <python-dev-AT-python.org> |
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
> So in this case, the vagueness of "data class" is considered a feature
> - since it doesn't inherently mean *anything*, folks are more likely
> to realise that they need to look up "Python data class", and if I
> search for that in a private window, the first Google hit is
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3357581/using-python-...
> container
> and the second is Eric's PEP.
>
I think "data classes" is a fine moniker for this concept.
It's ironic that some people dislike "data classes" because these are
regular classes, not just for data, while others are proposing alternative
names that emphasize the data container aspect. So "data classes" splits
the difference, by referring to both data and classes.
Let's bikeshed about something else.
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
