Sounds good. On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Ivan Levkivskyi <levkivs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 > > > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
