"John Machin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > George Sakkis wrote: > > +1 on this. The new suggested operations are meaningful for a subset > of all valid dicts, so they > > should not be part of the base dict API. If any version of this is > approved, it will clearly be an > > application of the "practicality beats purity" zen rule, and the > justification for applying it in > > this case instead of subclassing should better be pretty strong; so > far I'm not convinced though. > > My background: I've been subclassing dict since this was possible, to > provide not only a count/tally method but also a DIY intern method. > Before that I just copied dictmodule.c (every release!) and diffed and > hacked about till I had a mydict module. > > *any* version? Could we make you happy by having a subclass > TotallySinfulDict provided as part of the core? You don't have to use > it -- come to think of it, you don't have to use a sinful method in the > base dict. You could even avert your gaze when reading the > documentation. > > The justification for having it in the core: it's in C, not in Python, > it gets implemented and maintained (a) ONCE (b) by folk like the timbot > and Raymond instead of having (a) numerous versions lashed up (b) by > you and me and a whole bunch of n00bz and b1ffz :-)
I believe it was pretty clear that I'm not against a new dict extension, in the core or in the standard library; the proposed functionality is certainly useful and it would be most welcome. I just don't find it appropriate for the existing base dict because it is not applicable to *every* dictionary. As for the "you don't have to use feature X if you don't like it" argument, it's rarely relevant in language design. George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
