On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Jason Orendorff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ...and the majority of these cases would work fine with views (input > > to sorted(), etc). > > Suppose "the majority" here means 36 of the 46 cases. Then what > you're saying is, if I write .items() without thinking, there's about > a 3% chance it won't work (10 out of 339 cases). Forgive me: the > fact that you've gotten it down to 3%, e.g. by making items() return a > view instead of an iterator, doesn't make me terrifically happy. It's so easy to do what you want in those cases, though. Just by the view in list. > > > I'm OK with the status quo. Maybe iteritems() is a wart, but I think > views will be a much worse wart! > > If the only hard requirement is that dict lose *something* in Python > 3.0, I suggest droping values() and itervalues(), as I never use them. > ;-) > > -j > _______________________________________________ > 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/musiccomposition%40gmail.com > -- Cheers, Benjamin Peterson
_______________________________________________ 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
