On 20Apr2014 14:32, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/04/2014 06:31, Ethan Furman wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to write this up, Nick.
However, I am -1 on it. One of the allures of Python 3 is the increase
in simplicity and elegance. Restoring cruft does not help with that.
Python 2 idioms that get restored to Python 3 must have real value:
unicode literals, wire-protocol interpolations -- I don't feel that this
comes any where close to meeting that bar.
~Ethan~
+1 for this summary which echoes my sentiments entirely.
Me too. I'm against iteritems and friends coming back.
I've been burned in the past with the burden of writing a mapping class with
the many methods such a thing must support; both items() and iteritems() and so
forth. For the example I have in mind I eventually abandoned the objective of
being a full mapping and am going back to just a few methods to support easy
element access such as __getitem__ and __contains__.
I have a small python module of my own to aid my python 2+3 efforts, and am of
the opinion that it is better to add iteritems elper functions to a popular
module like six than to left the noise back into the python 3 mapping
interface.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au>
_______________________________________________
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
