Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> writes:
> > M.-A. Lemburg:
> > > Shouldn't be hard to do... the C API for this is already in place:
> > > PyDict_Next(). I'd prefer a method .getitem(), though, which then
> > > returns a tuple (key, value).
> >
> > IMO '.pickitem()' would be a better name, since many people would
> > think, that 'getitem()' would take some kind of index as parameter.
> > Nevertheless I think this is a nice idea, though.
>
> Pronouncement:
>
> It is only efficient to get the *first* item, so let's make that
> explicit. The method names will be:
>
> .firstkey()
> .firstvalue()
> .firstitem()
>
> Moshe will check in a patch.
>
> Thinking aloud:
>
> Would it be useful to also implement popkey(), popvalue(), popitem(),
> which would remove the first item and then return the relevant part of
> it?
I must admit I can't think of a situation where .firstkey would be
more useful than .popkey; I thought that this discussion was
discussion was inspired by the wish to write code like:
while not set.empty():
x = set.popfirstkey()
...
Maybe I'm jsut being dense, though.
FWIW, I think
dict.firstkey()
reads better than
dict.firstitem()[0]
if the former's what you're actually trying to say. Why not write
for k,_ in dict.items():
...
? (Overstating the case slightly for effect, but I hope the point is
clear).
Cheers,
M.
--
Arrrrgh, the braindamage! It's not unlike the massively
non-brilliant decision to use the period in abbreviations
as well as a sentence terminator. Had these people no
imagination at _all_? -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
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