MonkeeSage wrote: > On Oct 8, 1:44 pm, Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>but "let's hypergeneralize and treat sequences and mappings as the same >>thing" proposals are nothing new; a trip to the archives might be help- >>ful. > > > Huh? I don't want to treat sequences and mappings as the same thing. > I'm talking about adding two similar convenience methods for sequences > as already exist for mappings. That may make the two APIs closer, but > that's not necessarily a bad thing (think the square-bracket accessor). > Besides, has_index is sufficiently different already. If it's really a > problem, change get() to at() for sequences. seq.at(2). > > So far the reasons offered against adding those convenience methods > are: > > Reason: It's unnecessary / bloat. > - Then the same thing is true of the dict methods. > No: you are proposing to add features to the sequence interface for which there are few demonstrable use cases.
> Reason: It's not useful. > - I know of several use cases and could probably find others. > Well I certainly didn't find your last one particularly convincing: the attempt to reference a non-existent sequence member is almost always a programming error. > Reason: It takes effort to implement it. Why don't you do it yourself > if it's such a great idea! > - Mabye I will. But that is only a reason why they aren't currently > implemented, not why they *shouldn't* be. > > Reason: It makes sequences and mapping to much alike. > - Then change the names for the sequences methods. > > That is to say, no good reason has been offered for why these methods > shouldn't be implemented. > I would argue exactly the opposite: the reason why they shouldn't be implemented is because no good reason has been presented why they *should*. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
