At 12:04 AM 7/10/2007 +0300, Guido van Rossum wrote: >On 7/9/07, Barry Warsaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Phillip, I support any initiative to keep .setdefault() or similar >>functionality. When this thread came up before, I wasn't against >>defaultdict, I just didn't think it covered enough of the use cases >>of .setdefault() to warrant its removal. You describe some >>additional use cases. >> >>However, .setdefault() is a horrible name because it's not clear from >>the name that a 'get' operation also happens. > >We had a long name discussion when it was introduced. Perhaps we can >go back to the list suggested then and see if a better alternative was >overlooked?
Personally, for my use cases it wouldn't matter if it didn't return a value, because I'm not using it to shorten the code. So if you took away the return value and left the name (or changed it to something clearer), that'd be okay by me. The alternative, of course, is as Robert suggested, to just write some library code to deal with this and similar issues. If I have to import setdefault from somewhere to use it (ala the heapq.* functions), that's fine by me too, as long as it's still able to be atomic. That approach might also address Raymond's desire to narrow the dictionary object API. _______________________________________________ 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
