On Oct 11, 1:42 pm, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Andreas Kraemer wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 10:17 am, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> No, duck typing and inheritance are two different things. Duck
> >> typing is when you implement the same operatio
On Oct 11, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Andreas Kraemer wrote:
> On Oct 11, 10:17 am, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, duck typing and inheritance are two different things. Duck
>> typing is when you implement the same operations as another object or
>> class, whereas with inheritance you get
On Oct 11, 10:17 am, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, duck typing and inheritance are two different things. Duck
> typing is when you implement the same operations as another object or
> class, whereas with inheritance you get the same implementation as
> that of the parent class.
Exc
On Oct 11, 2007, at 1:36 AM, Andreas Kraemer wrote:
> On Oct 10, 9:00 pm, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're sure that 1. this use case won't grow and 2. that you'll
>> only be the only person ever using code, then it's your choice of
>> preference. Both of those points are equa
> > [...]In fact, now that I think of it, get_key
> > is probably a bad name for it, get_other_object_with_this_same_key is
> > probably more apt :)
>
> Or more precise:
> get_key_that_was_used_when_value_was_inserted_into_dictionary :-)
Or even more precisely:
get_key_obj
On Oct 10, 9:00 pm, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're sure that 1. this use case won't grow and 2. that you'll
> only be the only person ever using code, then it's your choice of
> preference. Both of those points are equally important. 1 is a
> manageability issue in that you ar
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Andreas Kraemer wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:18 pm, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, do you not keep references to your nodes anywhere but the actual
>> graph dict? I kind of agree with Chris here in that two dicts will
>> work. One for the nodes, indexed by thei
On Oct 9, 9:18 pm, Erik Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, do you not keep references to your nodes anywhere but the actual
> graph dict? I kind of agree with Chris here in that two dicts will
> work. One for the nodes, indexed by their strings.
Yes, I guess that's exactly what I want. To kee
On Oct 9, 2007, at 7:37 PM, Andreas Kraemer wrote:
> From: Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 1:51:04 PM
>
> > Because, by definition, if you have the key then you don't need
> to get
> > it from the dict. What you're doing here is conflating 2 mappings
> into
>
From: Chris Mellon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 1:51:04 PM
> Because, by definition, if you have the key then you don't need to get
> it from the dict. What you're doing here is conflating 2 mappings into
> one: string value->person and person->values. Use 2 explicit dicts t
On 10/9/07, Andreas Kraemer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I sometimes find it useful to store meta data on dictionary keys, like in
> the following example:
>
> class Dict(dict):
> def __init__(self,*args,**kw):
> self.key_dict = {}
> super(Dict,self).__init__(*args,**kw)
> def __setit
I sometimes find it useful to store meta data on dictionary keys, like in the
following example:
class Dict(dict):
def __init__(self,*args,**kw):
self.key_dict = {}
super(Dict,self).__init__(*args,**kw)
def __setitem__(self,k,v):
self.key_dict[k] = k
super(Dict,self).__setitem
12 matches
Mail list logo
