Home Original page

[Python-Dev] PEP 469: Restoring the iterkeys/values/items() methods

Cameron Simpson cs at zip.com.au
Mon Apr 21 05:01:35 CEST 2014 
On 20Apr2014 14:32, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20/04/2014 06:31, Ethan Furman wrote:
>>Thank you for taking the time to write this up, Nick.
>>
>>However, I am -1 on it.  One of the allures of Python 3 is the increase
>>in simplicity and elegance.  Restoring cruft does not help with that.
>>Python 2 idioms that get restored to Python 3 must have real value:
>>unicode literals, wire-protocol interpolations -- I don't feel that this
>>comes any where close to meeting that bar.
>>~Ethan~
>
>+1 for this summary which echoes my sentiments entirely.

Me too. I'm against iteritems and friends coming back.

I've been burned in the past with the burden of writing a mapping class with 
the many methods such a thing must support; both items() and iteritems() and so 
forth. For the example I have in mind I eventually abandoned the objective of 
being a full mapping and am going back to just a few methods to support easy 
element access such as __getitem__ and __contains__.

I have a small python module of my own to aid my python 2+3 efforts, and am of 
the opinion that it is better to add iteritems elper functions to a popular 
module like six than to left the noise back into the python 3 mapping 
interface.

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs at zip.com.au>
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list