RetroSearch Browse

Thu Apr 25 18:39:01 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-April/125526.html

On 04/25/2013 09:34 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us <mailto:ethan at stoneleaf.us>> wrote:
>
>     On 04/25/2013 06:03 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:
>
>
>         The __call__ syntax has been repurposed for the convenience API:
>
>         --> Animals = Enum('Animals', 'ant bee cat dog')
>         --> Animals
>
>         <Animals {ant: 1, bee: 2, cat: 3, dog: 4}>
>         --> Animals.ant
>         <EnumValue: Animals.ant [value=1]>
>         --> Animals.ant.value
>
>         1
>
>         The aforementioned deprecated syntax refers to __call__ with a single arguments (the convenience API by definition
>         requires more than one).
>
>
>     I don't understand why having Enum() be the convenience function rules out `Animals(1)` from returning `Animals.ant`.
>
>
> Because we already have a way to do that: Animals[1]. Why do you need two slightly different ways to do the same?
> Moreover, why do you want to make Animals.__call__ behave very differently based only on the number of args? This seems
> to be un-pythonic in multiple ways.

I think we're talking past each other (or I'm not awake yet ;).

Animals is a class.  Giving Animals a parameter (such as 1 or 'ant') should return the instance that matches.  This is 
how classes work.

I don't understand your assertion that there is another way to call Animals... do you mean something like:

--> MoreAnimals = Animals('MoreAnimals', 'bird worm insect')

?

--
~Ethan~

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-April/125526.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 435 -- Adding an Enum type to the Python standard library