On 4/18/2014 10:31 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > After spending some time talking to the folks at the PyCon Twisted > sprints, they persuaded me that adding back the iterkeys/values/items > methods for mapping objects would be a nice way to eliminate a key > porting hassle for them (and likely others), without significantly > increasing the complexity of Python 3. I hate this idea. It strikes me as junking up Python3 with stuff it is well rid of. I think anything that can be left to the transition modules should be. The u'' syntax had to be in the language itself. This does not have to be. > I personally put this one in the same category as PEP 414 - When I suggested that PEP 414 might be seen as a precedent for restoring more of Py2, I was trashed for saying so. "No, no, u'' is a unique case. [it is] This will be the last proposal like this." What will come next? > not > particularly useful from a Python 3 perspective, but not really > harmful either, It makes the language a bit harder to learn and remember and slightly more confusing. It will not help inter-operating with Python before 3.5, at the earliest and cannot be backported. Most things in an independent module can be used with any 3.x. I would have preferred that you started by presenting the problem on python-ideas with possible solutions, rather than as a finished PEP pushing my least favorite solution. -- Terry Jan Reedy
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