Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should we use an 'enum' type for enumerated values? #1031

Closed
tseaver opened this issue Aug 4, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Should we use an 'enum' type for enumerated values? #1031

tseaver opened this issue Aug 4, 2015 · 6 comments
Assignees
Labels
type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.

Comments

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor

tseaver commented Aug 4, 2015

E.g., wherever the back-end takes a string value, but requires that it be one of a set of known values? Likewise for integers which map protobuf enum values.

@dhermes suggested using https://pypi.python.org/pypi/enum.

I favor using the PEP-435-compatible https://pypi.python.org/pypi/enum34/, which backports the enum from the Python 3.4 stdlib.

@tseaver tseaver added the type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue. label Aug 4, 2015
@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented Aug 4, 2015

I meant enum34, just was in a hurry when getting the link.

@tseaver
Copy link
Contributor Author

tseaver commented Aug 4, 2015

Cool.

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented Dec 31, 2015

@tseaver Can we move forward with this or close it out?

@daspecster
Copy link
Contributor

@tseaver @dhermes bump!

I would like to use this in Vision if that's ok?

@dhermes
Copy link
Contributor

dhermes commented Dec 5, 2016

Our dependencies already pull in enum34 so that's totally fine with me.

@daspecster
Copy link
Contributor

Spiffy, I'll closet this then and proceed!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
type: question Request for information or clarification. Not an issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants