On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:49:52 +1000
Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> Is it more common to want both the canonical key and value at the same
> time, or to just want the canonical key? My gut feeling is that I'm
> likely to have code like this:
>
> d = TransformDict(...)
> for key in data:
> key = d.get_canonical(key)
> value = d[key]
> print("{}: {}".format(key, value))
>
> in which case having a single call to return both will be great:
>
> for key in data:
> key, value = d.getitem(key)
> print("{}: {}".format(key, value))
>
> but I'm really not sure. Maybe Ethan is right.
I don't think it really matters. From getitem() it's trivial to extract
the key alone.
> I think these sorts of associated questions are why some people
> (Raymond, Nick) want to see the proposal live outside of the standard
> library for a while first. The general idea is great, but we're going to
> bike shed the API without having much idea of how it will actually be
> used.
Even after it's used, it will still be bikeshedded: such is how
proposals are generally discussed. There really isn't very much to
decide here, and whether we only return a key or a (key, value) pair is
almost cosmetic: both APIs are reasonably convenient.
> So, my suggestion is this:
>
> - Let's add __transform__ to dicts for 3.4, similar to __missing__, and
> see how people end up using it in the real world.
Well, __missing__ isn't used very much, I think. People use defaultdict.
(note that I'm not even proposing __transform__ right now :-))
> +1 on __transform__ method on dicts.
>
> +0 on TransformedDict in 3.4
>
> +1 on waiting for 3.5 based on experience on using __transform__.
Ok, thanks.
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
