On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:31:46 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That said, with the current plan to lower the barrier to entry for PyPI > dependencies (I should have the 3.4 only ensurepip proposal written up some > time this week), I think it makes sense to let this one bake on PyPI for a > while.
"the current plan to lower the barrier to entry for PyPI" sounds a lot like the obsession du jour to me :-) It's not like "ensurepip" makes it cheaper / more attractive to add dependencies. It just provides a better experience for those who *want* to use pip (and would otherwise have installed it using an explicit download). > I think there *is* a potentially worthwhile generalisation here, but I'm > far from sure "is-a-dict" is the right data model - for composability > reasons, it feels like a "has-a" relationship with an underlying data store > may make more sense. It doesn't work. Your "underlying mapping" can show too much variation for the wrapper/proxy to have sane semantics. For example, how do you combine with a defaultdict or a WeakKeyDictionary, knowing that the wrapper/proxy has to have its own internal mapping as well? > (If performance is critical, you're going to write a > dedicated type anyway, so composability and simplicity strike me as more > important criteria at this point). A dedicated CaseInsensitiveDict won't be much faster than TransformDict(str.casefold). 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
