On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 09:34 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us<mailto:
>> et...@stoneleaf.us>> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/25/2013 06:03 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>>
>>
>> The __call__ syntax has been repurposed for the convenience API:
>>
>> --> Animals = Enum('Animals', 'ant bee cat dog')
>> --> Animals
>>
>> <Animals {ant: 1, bee: 2, cat: 3, dog: 4}>
>> --> Animals.ant
>> <EnumValue: Animals.ant [value=1]>
>> --> Animals.ant.value
>>
>> 1
>>
>> The aforementioned deprecated syntax refers to __call__ with a
>> single arguments (the convenience API by definition
>> requires more than one).
>>
>>
>> I don't understand why having Enum() be the convenience function
>> rules out `Animals(1)` from returning `Animals.ant`.
>>
>>
>> Because we already have a way to do that: Animals[1]. Why do you need two
>> slightly different ways to do the same?
>> Moreover, why do you want to make Animals.__call__ behave very
>> differently based only on the number of args? This seems
>> to be un-pythonic in multiple ways.
>>
>
> I think we're talking past each other (or I'm not awake yet ;).
>
> Animals is a class. Giving Animals a parameter (such as 1 or 'ant')
> should return the instance that matches. This is how classes work.
>
> I don't understand your assertion that there is another way to call
> Animals... do you mean something like:
>
> --> MoreAnimals = Animals('MoreAnimals', 'bird worm insect')
>
Yes, this works in the current implementation. But I'm realizing that the
recent proposals of making isinstance(Color.red, Color) True will turn
things around anyway so this discussion may be moot.
Eli
_______________________________________________
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
