Greg Ewing wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> Without a direct reason in terms of the language needing a
>> standardization of an interface, perhaps we just don't need
> > views.
>
> On the contrary, views are a very useful idea, *as a
> design pattern*. What we *don't* need in Python, as far
> as I can see, is any formalised protocols or interfaces
> for views, because there's nothing that can be said about
> them in general.
>
> Thinking that "having views" means "having a formally
> defined interface for views" is a mindset that comes
> from B&D languages like Java. It doesn't apply to
> Python at all.
+lots
All I think we're currently missing is an idea of 'what magic methods does an
object need to provide in order to pretend to be a container, rather than just
an iterable?'
Change dict.keys/values/items to return views which implement that set of
methods, and all should be good.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
