Zahari Dim <zaha...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> > I've discussed this with other core devs and spent a good deal of time > evaluating this proposal. I'm going to pass on the this one but do think it > was a inspired suggestion. Thank you for the proposal. Thank you for taking the time to consider it. I understand that there are many proposals. > > ---------- > > Note, the original get_where() recipe has an issue. Upon successful lookup, > it returns a 2-tuple but on failure it calls __missing__ which typically > returns a scalar (if it doesn't raise an exception). FWIW this was intended to work when `__missing__` was subclassed to raise a more specific exception. The case where it is made to return a value clearly doesn't play well with the proposed method, and would likely need to be subclassed as well. I consider this an acceptable trade off because I find this use case rather esoteric: the same functionality could be achieved in an arguably clearer way by passing a mapping with the desired missing semantics as the outermost scope. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue34586> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
