:) Yes, I thought about that even as I was writing that post. But I also said, "ParseResults implements quite a bit of additional behavior that would not be required or necessarily appropriate for odict." Even if odict existed, I think I would have needed ParseResults anyway (but using an odict internally might have simplified things for me, instead of the combined list and dict that I have now).
-- Paul -----Original Message----- From: Shane Geiger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:20 AM To: Paul McGuire Cc: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: PEP 372 -- Adding an ordered directory to collections Paul, You seem to be contradicting yourself. You may have never needed an odict, yet you seem to have implemented one on your own. Maybe you needed one but did not realize it? Shane > 5. The more I think and write about this, the more struck I am at the > similarity of odict and the ParseResults class in pyparsing. For > instance, in ParseResults, there is also support for dict-style and > list-style item referencing, and I chose to restrict some cases so > that using [] notation would not be ambiguous. You might want to add > pyparsing.ParseResults as another reference of current "odicts in the > wild" (although ParseResults implements quite a bit of additional > behavior that would not be required or necessarily appropriate for > odict). > > I vote +0 on this PEP - I've never personally needed an odict, but I > can see how some of the XML and ORM coding would be simplified by one. > > -- Shane Geiger IT Director National Council on Economic Education [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 402-438-8958 | http://www.ncee.net Leading the Campaign for Economic and Financial Literacy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list