, 2017 14:33, "Ben Usman" wrote:
Sounds like that happens quite often.
Yep, I totally agree with your point, I think I mentioned something like
this in the post as a possible partial solution: a drop-in replacement for
an ugly list compression people seem to be using now to solve the pro
s" instead of many different get_n,
gets, get_mutliple)? The only motivation I can think of, and even it is
questionable.
On Nov 12, 2017 05:06, "Nick Coghlan" wrote:
On 11 November 2017 at 16:22, Jelle Zijlstra
wrote:
> 2017-11-10 19:53 GMT-08:00 Ben Usman :
>> I
Got it, thank you. I'll go and check it out!
On Nov 11, 2017 01:22, "Jelle Zijlstra" wrote:
>
>
> 2017-11-10 19:53 GMT-08:00 Ben Usman :
>
>> The following works now:
>>
>> seq = [1, 2]
>> d = {'c': 3, 'a': 1, &
The following works now:
seq = [1, 2]
d = {'c': 3, 'a': 1, 'b': 2}
(el1, el2) = *seq
el1, el2 = *seq
head, *tail = *seq
seq_new = (*seq, *tail)
dict_new = {**d, **{'c': 4}}
def f(arg1, arg2, a, b, c):
pass
f(*seq, **d)
It seems like dict unpacking syntax would not be fully coherent with
list
