On 20Apr2014 14:32, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 20/04/2014 06:31, Ethan Furman wrote: >>Thank you for taking the time to write this up, Nick. >> >>However, I am -1 on it. One of the allures of Python 3 is the increase >>in simplicity and elegance. Restoring cruft does not help with that. >>Python 2 idioms that get restored to Python 3 must have real value: >>unicode literals, wire-protocol interpolations -- I don't feel that this >>comes any where close to meeting that bar. >>~Ethan~ > >+1 for this summary which echoes my sentiments entirely. Me too. I'm against iteritems and friends coming back. I've been burned in the past with the burden of writing a mapping class with the many methods such a thing must support; both items() and iteritems() and so forth. For the example I have in mind I eventually abandoned the objective of being a full mapping and am going back to just a few methods to support easy element access such as __getitem__ and __contains__. I have a small python module of my own to aid my python 2+3 efforts, and am of the opinion that it is better to add iteritems elper functions to a popular module like six than to left the noise back into the python 3 mapping interface. Cheers, Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au>
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