Oren Tirosh wrote:
> I assume that the motive is to get rid of the quotes around the key and
> conceptually treat it as a "symbol" rather than as a string. If that is
> the case it could apply to access as well as initialization.
>
> class record(dict):
> def __init__(self, __initfrom=(), **kw):
> self.__dict__ = self
> dict.__init__(self, __initfrom)
> self.update(kw)
>
> def __repr__(self):
> return "%s(%s)" % (self.__class__.__name__,
> ', '.join(['%s=%s' % (k, repr(v)) for k,v in self.items()]))
>
> Fields can be accessed as either items or attributes of a record object.
(Neat! Would've never guessed that works... I actually wrote a class with this
purpose the other day, I'll see whether I can use the above instead.)
But: no, I simply find the {"key": "value"} syntax sometimes inappropriate.
Consider the following example:
template = """some elaborate template using %(name)s-style
substitution"""
# idiom 1
x = template % {"name1": foo(), "name2": baz()}
# idiom 2
name1 = foo()
name2 = foo()
x = template % locals()
# idiom 3 (after my patch, or with a homegrown function)
x = template % dict(key1=foo(), key2=baz())
I find #3 more readable than #1. #2 ain't so bad, but I hate it that when you're
quickly going over the code it looks like there are some unused variables.
Just
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