Ignoring classes for the moment, how likely do you think you would
have a dict like that :)
On a separate note if you are using primitive types, I cannot think of
any scenarios, where not coercing keys to be of the same type would be
considered inappropriate (except in case of reverse dicts)
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Me@Bibhas <m...@bibhas.in> wrote:
> What would happen for a dictionary like this?
>
>>>> d = {'1': 'foo', 1: 'bar'}
>>>> d
> {'1': 'foo', 1: 'bar'}
>
>
> On Tuesday 10 September 2013 10:00 AM, Noufal Ibrahim wrote:
>> Shabda Raaj <sha...@agiliq.com> writes:
>>
>>> http://code.activestate.com/recipes/52308-the-simple-but-handy-collector-of-a-bunch-of-named/
>>>
>>> With api responses after you have parsed the json, you start doing things
>>> like:
>>>
>>> api_response["attribute"]
>>>
>>> I would much prefer to do
>>>
>>> api_response.attribute
>> I generally like to use attributes instead of keys. One additional
>> advantage is that I can, if necessary, later convert the attribute into
>> a property that does more than just return a value.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BangPypers mailing list
> BangPypers@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: @dnene google plus:
http://gplus.to/dhananjaynene
_______________________________________________
BangPypers mailing list
BangPypers@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
