Steven Bethard wrote:
> The question is not how easy it is to write,
> but how many times it's going to get written.
but with that logic we could create a standard
"looping" construct called loop(x) that would stand in for
for i in range(x):
or a file_reader('whatever') generator that would be
a shortcut for:
for line in file('whatever'):
line = line.strip()
elems = line.split()
> and more than one of them had rewritten the class a few times.
Two observations regarding that:
1. Probably not entirely true. They might have used something like a Bunch
but it is a bit too optimistic to believe that they could have directly used
your Bunch. My Bunches turn out to be just a ever so slightly different.
Either have an update operation or an equality, or can be hashed etc.
So in the end it might save a lot less work.
2. Even if it was, no big deal. It takes too little time to do it.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have a module that
implements various design patterns. The Bunch, the Borg, the Null,
the Proxy all nicely documented tucked away in their separate
module. That would feel a lot less like littering the standard name space
with an class that just "seems" to be useful.
just an opinion.
Istvan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
