On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Dino Viehland <di...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Benjamin wrote: >> 2010/4/17 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>: >> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >>> Because Python promises that the object the callee sees as 'kwargs' >> is >> >>> "just a dict". >> >> >> >> Huh, I thought kwargs was allowed to be implemented as a >> >> string-keys-only dict (similar to class and module namespaces) while >> >> still be a valid Python implementation. I guess I was wrong. >> > >> > Actually I don't know about that. Is there language anywhere in the >> > language reference that says this? What do IronPython, Jython, PyPy >> > actually do? >> >> Similar to CPython, PyPy has dict versions optimized for strings, >> which fall back to the general version when given non-string keys. > > IronPython as well. The only place we use a string only dict is for > new-style classes whose dict's are wrapped in a dictproxy.
And yet that breaks some code :-) _______________________________________________ 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
