On 2/22/06, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Guido van Rossum"] > > If we removed on_missing() from dict, we'd have to override > > __getitem__ in defaultdict (regardless of whether we give > >defaultdict an on_missing() hook or in-line it). > > You have another option. Keep your current modifications to > dict.__getitem__ but do not include dict.on_missing(). Let it only > be called in a subclass IF it is defined; otherwise, raise KeyError.
OK. I don't have time right now for another round of patches -- if you do, please go ahead. The dict docs in my latest patch must be updated somewhat (since they document on_missing()). > That keeps me happy since the basic dict API won't show on_missing(), > but it still allows a user to attach an on_missing method to a dict subclass > when > or if needed. I think all your test cases would still pass without > modification. Except the ones that explicitly test for dict.on_missing()'s presence and behavior. :-) > This is approach is not much different than for other magic methods which > kick-in if defined or revert to a default behavior if not. Right. Plenty of precedent there. > My core concern is to keep the dict API clean as a whistle. Understood. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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