> the part you didn't like about that? If so, how about changing the > constructor to > > def __init__(self, *dicts): > ... > > instead so you could use it as a one-liner > > format % MultiDict(d1, d2, ...) > > ? That's exactly the same as the tuple idea, except there's a nice > descriptive word in the middle of it <wink>. I've always wonderer why dict+dict isn't supported (or possibly dict|dict, if the key-collision semantics of + on dict are seen as a problem). Is there a good reason for this, or is it just that there are other more important things to implement? This wouldn't be a replacement for all uses of MultiDict, as it would probably have to create a new dict to keep semantics in line with those of list+list -- Jack Jansen | ++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++ Jack.Jansen@oratrix.com | ++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++ www.oratrix.nl/~jack | see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4