On 27 August 2017 at 03:23, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote: >> On 08/26/2017 09:25 AM, Yury Selivanov wrote: >>> ContextVar.lookup() method *traverses the stack* until it finds the LC >>> that has a value. "get()" does not reflect this subtle semantics >>> difference. >> >> A good point; however, ChainMap, which behaves similarly as far as lookup >> goes, uses "get" and does not have a "lookup" method. I think we lose more >> than we gain by changing that method name. > > ChainMap is constrained to be a Mapping-like object, but I get your > point. Let's see what others say about the "lookup()". It is kind of > an experiment to try a name and see if it fits.
I don't think "we may want to add extra parameters" is a good reason to omit a conventional `get()` method - I think it's a reason to offer a separate API to handle use cases where the question of *where* the var is set matters (for example, `my_var.is_set()` would indicate whether or not `my_var.set()` has been called in the current logical context without requiring a parameter check for normal lookups that don't care). Cheers, Nick. P.S. And I say that as a reader who correctly guessed why you had changed the method name in the current iteration of the proposal. I'm sympathetic to those reasons, but I think sticking with the conventional API will make this one easier to learn and use :) -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ 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
