Raymond Hettinger wrote: >>Yes, I now agree. This means that I'm withdrawing proposal A (new >>method) and championing only B (a subclass that implements >>__getitem__() calling on_missing() and on_missing() defined in that >>subclass as before, calling default_factory unless it's None). I don't >>think this crisis is big enough to need *two* solutions, and this >>example shows B's superiority over A. > > > FWIW, I'm happy with the proposal and think it is a nice addition to Py2.5.
I agree. I would have preferred if dict itself was modified, but after ruling out changes to dict.__getitem__, d[k]+=1 is too important to not support it. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ 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
