> On 1 Mar 2017, at 19:13, Abe Dillon <abedil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Barry, you're taking the metaphor too far. Duct typing is about presenting a > certain interface. If your function takes an object that has a get(key, > default) method, the rest doesn't matter. That's the only way in which the > object needs to resemble a duck in your function.
In support of get() I found that list of ducks a poor agument for the reasons I stated. That's not to say that get() on lists may well have value for other reasons, but I find the duck typing a very weak argument. > > I'd like to +1 this proposal. It should be trivial to implement. It won't > break backward compatibility. It's intuitive. I can think of several places I > would use it. I can't think of a good reason not to include it. I do not think I have encounted any use cases where I would have used this my self. Maybe in command line processing, I have to dig in my repos and check. Might be able to short cut a length check with a get with default None or "". Barry > >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Barry <ba...@barrys-emacs.org> wrote: >> >> > On 1 Mar 2017, at 01:26, Michel Desmoulin <desmoulinmic...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > - you can iterate on both >> Maybe, bit do you want the keys, values or (key, value) items? Keys being >> the deafult. >> > - you can index both >> Maybe as you cannot in the general case know the index. Need keys(). >> > - you can size both >> Yes >> >> I think this duck cannot swim or quack. >> >> Barry >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> Python-ideas@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/