Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> added the comment: The python-ideas mailing list might be a better place to discuss this. Note that it's too late for new features in the 2.x series, so I'm changing the version to 3.2
> pop self.recv_buffer[:size] I don't think this'll fly, even if you spell it pop(self.recv_buffer[:size]). It's not worth a new built-in function, let alone a grammar change. > self.recv_buffer.pop(,-size) Something like this seems more reasonable, especially if it can be done without introducing new syntax and in a fully backwards-compatible way. One idea that seems fairly natural to me would be to allow list.pop and friends to support slices, so you could do: last2 = slice(None, -2) self.recv_buffer.pop(last2) or even penultimate, ultimate = self.recv_buffer.pop(last2) It would require some work to implement and debug this, though. ---------- components: +Interpreter Core nosy: +mark.dickinson type: performance -> feature request versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.6 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9218> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
