Yes, indeed immutability is one thing PyRecord is missing. I have had needed it at least twice since I created the library. I’m hoping to work on it after the Christmas break.

I too dislike having to repeat the name of the record type. I spent a long time researching and prototyping alternatives, but came to the conclusion that namedtuple’s approach (repeating the type name) was the best compromise.

One of the options I considered was very similar to what you’re proposing, but I found two problems with it: It wouldn’t be correct to imply that PyRecord has a class named “Point” and it would not be good for static code analysis (inc. code completion in IDEs).

I also considered exposing a second way to create record types, but then I remembered one point in the Zen of Python: “There should be one– and preferably only one –obvious way to do it”.

I like `collections.namedtuple` a lot for their immutability and `_replace` method =) Very often redefine `__new__` in them to make some fields optional, with default value.

Regarding passing name of the record type explicitly, have you considered to make a sugar for that ?

For instance, `pyrecord.new.Point(“x”, “y”)` or `pyrecord.type.Point`.
Also you can check `sh` library they make a wrapper for the module so you can do something like this


from pyrecord import PointDef
 
Point = PointDef('x', 'y')
# or
Point = pyrecord.Point('x', 'y')


I tried this approach.


class RecordNameProxy:
def __getattr__(self, name):
return lambda *args, **kwargs: Record.create_type(name, *args, **kwargs)
 
type = RecordNameProxy()