On 2005-12-10, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> So lets agree that tree['a':'b'] would produce a subtree. Then
>> I still would prefer the possibility to do something like:
>>
>> for key in tree.iterkeys('a':'b')
>>
>> Instead of having to write
>>
>> for key in tree['a':'b'].iterkeys()
>>
>> Sure I can now do it like this:
>>
>> for key in tree.iterkeys('a','b')
>>
>> But the way default arguments work, prevents you from having
>> this work in an analague way as a slice.
>
> How so? Can't you just pass the *args to the slice contstructor? E.g.::
>
> def iterkeys(self, *args):
> keyslice = slice(*args)
> ...
>
> Then you can use the slice object just as you would have otherwise.
This doesn't work for a number of reasons,
1)
>>> slice()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
TypeError: slice expected at least 1 arguments, got 0
2) It doens't give a clear way to indicate the following
kind of slice: tree.iterkeys('a':). Because of the
follwing:
>>> slice('a')
slice(None, 'a', None)
which would be equivallent to tree.iterkeys(:'a')
--
Antoon Pardon
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
