On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:48 PM 3/12/2007 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote:
> >On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Of course, generic functions require you to say 'foo(bar)' instead of
> > > 'bar.foo()' (and IIUC, that's the big sticking point for Guido wrt to GF's
> > > in Py3K).
> >
> >Yeah, I'd be happy to see things like ``len()`` and ``iter()`` become
> >generic functions like these (they're already most of the way there)
> >but I'm not sure I'm ready to start writing ``dict.update(d, ...)``
> >instead of ``d.update(...)``.
>
> If you *know* you're using a dict, then of course d.update() is
> preferable. But wouldn't it be *nice* if you *could* call dict.update(d,
> ...) on anything that had a __setitem__? :)
Definitely. It would certainly make implementing DictMixin simpler (if
it didn't eliminate the need for it entirely).
STeVe
--
I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a
tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity.
--- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy
_______________________________________________
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
