On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:05:27 +0300 Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote: > 13.09.13 23:21, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла): > > On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 23:16:10 +0300 > > Serhiy Storchaka <storch...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 13.09.13 21:40, Antoine Pitrou написав(ла): > >>> Alternative proposals and questions > >>> =================================== > >> > >> Yet one alternative proposal is to add the dict.__transform__() method. > >> Actually this not contradict TransformDict, but generalize it. > >> TransformDict will be just handly interface to __transform__() as > >> defaultdict to __missing__(). It provides only constructor, repr and > >> pickling. > > > > Is it an alternative proposal or is it compatible with the PEP? > > The PEP specifies the API, not the implementation. > > Both. On one side, with this proposition TransformDict itself doesn't > deserve PEP. It will be trivial and obvious thing.
Well, TransformDict would still be the user-visible API, not __transform__; like defaultdict is the user-visible API, not __missing__. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
