On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:12:39AM +, Emanuel Barry wrote:
> > From Steven D'Aprano
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:49 PM
> > To: python-ideas@python.org
> > Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Enhancing vars()
> >
> > But if the object has __slots__, with or without a __dict__, then vars
> > s
> From Steven D'Aprano
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:49 PM
> To: python-ideas@python.org
> Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Enhancing vars()
>
> But if the object has __slots__, with or without a __dict__, then vars
> should return a proxy which direct reads and writes to the correct slot
> or d
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:53:44AM +, Paul Moore wrote:
[...]
> There's obviously a speed-up from avoiding repeated getattr calls, but
> is speed the key here?
Not for me.
> The advantage of an "enhanced vars" is more likely to be ease of
> discoverability, and I'm not sure dict.fromattrs giv
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:45:39PM -0500, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> > Proposal: enhance vars() to return a proxy to the object namespace,
> > regardless of whether said namespace is __dict__ itself, or a number of
> > __slots__, or
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:58:16AM +0200, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
> On 13.12.16 01:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >One of the lesser-known ones is vars(obj), which should be used in place
> >of obj.__dict__.
> >
> >Unfortunately, vars() is less useful than it might be, since not all
> >objects have a
On 13.12.16 01:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
One of the lesser-known ones is vars(obj), which should be used in place
of obj.__dict__.
Unfortunately, vars() is less useful than it might be, since not all
objects have a __dict__. Some objects have __slots__ instead, or even
both. That is considered
> It also refers to local and global variables, as vars() is effectively
> an alias for locals() if you don't pass an argument, and locals() is
> effectively an alias for globals() at module level:
>
> https://www.getpattern.com/meetpattern> to sign up!
__
Nick Coghlan writes:
> (With the lack of an underscore being due to the precedent set by
> dict.fromkeys())
>
> Armed with those, the "give me all the attributes from __dir__"
> command would be:
>
> attrs = dict.from_attrs(obj, dir(obj))
A
Urk
On 13 December 2016 at 11:28, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Armed with those, the "give me all the attributes from __dir__"
> command would be:
>
> attrs = dict.from_attrs(obj, dir(obj))
Which of course can already be spelled as
attrs = { attr: getattr(obj, attr) for attr in dir(obj) }
There's
On 13 December 2016 at 20:02, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:29:38AM +0100, Marco Buttu wrote:
>
>> +1. Would it be possible in the future (Py4?) to change the name `vars`
>> to a more meaningful name? Maybe `namespace`, or something more appropriate.
>
> I'm not keen on the n
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 10:29:38AM +0100, Marco Buttu wrote:
> +1. Would it be possible in the future (Py4?) to change the name `vars`
> to a more meaningful name? Maybe `namespace`, or something more appropriate.
I'm not keen on the name vars() either, but it does make a certain
sense: short f
On 13/12/2016 00:45, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
In general, directly accessing dunders is a bit of a code smell. (I
exclude writing dunder methods in your classes, of course.) There's
usually a built-in or similar to do the job for you, e.g. instead of
iterator.__next__() we should use next(iterator
12 matches
Mail list logo
