[Python-3000] Discussions with no PEPs (original) (raw)

Steven Bethard steven.bethard at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 04:40:57 CET 2007

On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote:

At 08:48 PM 3/12/2007 -0600, Steven Bethard wrote: >On 3/12/07, Phillip J. Eby <pje at telecommunity.com> wrote: > > Of course, generic functions require you to say 'foo(bar)' instead of > > 'bar.foo()' (and IIUC, that's the big sticking point for Guido wrt to GF's > > in Py3K). > >Yeah, I'd be happy to see things like len() and iter() become >generic functions like these (they're already most of the way there) >but I'm not sure I'm ready to start writing dict.update(d, ...) >instead of d.update(...).

If you know you're using a dict, then of course d.update() is preferable. But wouldn't it be nice if you could call dict.update(d, ...) on anything that had a setitem? :)

Definitely. It would certainly make implementing DictMixin simpler (if it didn't eliminate the need for it entirely).

STeVe

I'm not in-sane. Indeed, I am so far out of sane that you appear a tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list