On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 01:11:49PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > Over lunch with Alex Martelli, he proposed that a subclass of dict > with this behavior (but implemented in C) would be a good addition to > the language. It looks like it wouldn't be hard to implement. It could > be a builtin named defaultdict. The first, required, argument to the > constructor should be the default value. Remaining arguments (even > keyword args) are passed unchanged to the dict constructor.
Should a dict subclass really change the constructor/initializer signature in an incompatible way? -- Thomas Wouters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
