On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au> wrote: > 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__. As far as I know, all you have to implement yourself, to support the dict-like interface, are: - __getitem__ - __setitem__ - __delitem__ - __iter__ - __len__ MutableMapping can implement the rest. This wouldn't change with the re-addition of the iter* methods. You really have to use MutableMapping now that keys/items/values are complicated objects: it's much harder to implement dict-like objects from scratch in 3.x than 2.x. -- Devin
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