[Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
Raymond Hettinger
python at rcn.com
Tue Feb 21 02:05:33 CET 2006
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Tue Feb 21 02:05:33 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Next message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[Alex] >> I see d[k]+=1 as a substantial improvement -- conceptually more >> direct, "I've now seen one more k than I had seen before". [Guido] > Yes, I now agree. This means that I'm withdrawing proposal A (new > method) and championing only B (a subclass that implements > __getitem__() calling on_missing() and on_missing() defined in that > subclass as before, calling default_factory unless it's None). I don't > think this crisis is big enough to need *two* solutions, and this > example shows B's superiority over A. FWIW, I'm happy with the proposal and think it is a nice addition to Py2.5. Raymond
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Next message: [Python-Dev] defaultdict proposal round three
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list