On 13 November 2016 at 04:07, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 5:46 PM, David Mertz <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote: > >> If we *do* want the name 'slice' as the spelling for the thing that can >> either be called or indexed to create a slice object, we could probably use >> some boilerplate like this: >> > > I can't stop you from doing that in your own session, but I don't want to > reuse the builtin slice object for that. If this is so useful with Pandas > maybe the Pandas library can define its own helper for this purpose. > This reminds me @ vs .dot() for matrix multiplication a bit. Pandas has IndexSlicer, NumPy has index_exp, etc. I think it would be nice to have a simple common way to express this. But here we have an additional ingredient -- generic types. I think that a reasonable compromise would be to simply continue the way proposed in http://bugs.python.org/issue24379 -- just add operator.subscript for this purpose. Pros: * subscript is not a class, so that subscript[...] will be not confused with generics; * this does not require patching built-ins; * all libraries that need this will get a "common interface" in stdlib, operator module seems to be good place for this. The patch for operator.subscript was already applied, but it is now reverted because it caused a refleak. I have submitted a new patch that does not cause refleaks, I just replaced empty __slots__ with a __setattr__: it looks like __slots__ are not needed here to save memory (there is only a singleton instance), they were used just to create an immutable object. -- Ivan
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
