[Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three (original) (raw)
Greg Ewing greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz
Wed Feb 22 11:29:40 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Next message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Fuzzyman wrote:
cfg = ConfigObj(newfilename) cfg['key'] = 'value' cfg['key2'] = ['value1', 'value2', 'value3'] cfg['section'] = {'key': 'value', 'key2': ['value1', 'value2', 'value3']}
If the main purpose is to support this kind of notational convenience, then I'd be inclined to require all the values used with this API to be concrete strings, lists or dicts. If you're going to make types part of the API, I think it's better to do so with a firm hand rather than being half- hearted and wishy-washy about it.
Then, if it's really necessary to support a wider variety of types, provide an alternative API that separates the different cases and isn't type-dependent at all. If someone has a need for this API, using it isn't going to be much of an inconvenience, since he won't be able to write out constructors for his types using notation as compact as the above anyway.
-- Greg
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Next message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]