Maybe it's just the C++ IO piping that makes me like it, but these actually seem intuitive to me, whereas `+` or even `|` leaves me queasy.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 7:40 PM Ian Foote <i...@feete.org> wrote: > > It might also be worth considering YAML's own dict merge operator, the > > "<<" operator, as in https://yaml.org/type/merge.html as this is the > > existing Python's shift operator added to dict and will require no > > change to the synatx:: > > > > a = a << b > > > I really like this suggestion. It captures the asymmetry, since we could > have a = a >> b to merge with the other dictionary's keys taking precedence. > > My instinct is that a = a << b would take b's values when keys collide and > a = a >> b would take a's values when keys collide. I'd be very interested > to know if this matches most peoples' intuitions. > > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 18:44, Meitham Jamaa <m...@meitham.com> wrote: > >> It might also be worth considering YAML's own dict merge operator, the >> "<<" operator, as in https://yaml.org/type/merge.html as this is the >> existing Python's shift operator added to dict and will require no >> change to the synatx:: >> >> a = a << b >> >> Meitham >> >> >> On 03/10, Chris Angelico wrote: >> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3:16 AM Jonathan Fine <jfine2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > Anders Hovmöller wrote: >> > > >> > > > I don't understand what you mean. Can you provide examples that >> show the state of the dicts before and after and what the syntax would be >> the equivalent of in current python? >> > > >> > > If a.__radd__ exists, then >> > > a += b >> > > is equivalent to >> > > a = a.__radd__(b) >> > > >> > > Similarly, if a.__iat_update__ exists then >> > > a @update= b >> > > would be equivalent to >> > > a = a.__iat_update__(b) >> > > >> > > Here's an implementation >> > > def __iat_update__(self, other): >> > > self.update(other) >> > > return self >> > > >> > > Thus, 'b' would be unchanged, and 'a' would be the same dictionary as >> > > before, but updated with 'b'. >> > >> > With something this long, how is it better from just writing: >> > >> > a = a.update_with(b) >> > >> > ? What's the point of an operator, especially if - by your own >> > statement - it will backward-incompatibly change the language grammar >> > (in ways that I've yet to understand, since you haven't really been >> > clear on that)? >> > >> > ChrisA >> > >> >> -- >> Meitham Jamaa >> >> http://meitham.com >> GPG Fingerprint: 3934D0B2 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > -- Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting advocates of freedom in prisons. Intellectual property is to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
