On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:46:07 +0200, Guido van Rossum
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/27/05, Wolfgang Lipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i never expected .get()
>> to work that way (return an unsolicited None) -- i do consider this
>> behavior harmful and suggest it be removed.
>
> That's a bizarre attitude. You don't read the docs and hence you want
> a feature you weren't aware of to be removed?
i do read the docs, and i believe i do keep a lot of detail in my
head. every now and then, tho, you piece sth together using a logic
that is not 100% the way it was intended, or the way it came about.
let me say that for someone who did developement for python for
a while it is natural to know that ~.get() is there for avoidance
of exceptions, and default values are an afterthought, but for someone
who did developement *with* python (and lacks experience of the other
side) this ain't necessarily so. that said, i believe it to be
more expressive and safer to demand ~.get('x',None) to be written
to achieve the present behavior, and let ~.get('x') raise an
exception. personally, i can live with either way, and am happier
the second. just my thoughts.
> I'm glad you're not on *my* team. (Emphasis mine. :-)
i wonder what that would be like.
_wolf
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
