Alex Martelli wrote: > The existence of dicts is > a laughably feeble excuse to avoid having adaptation in Python's > standard library,
The point is whether it buys you anything important over using a dict. If you use it in such a wide-open way that it's just a mapping from anything to anything, I don't see that it does. Another thing that makes me way of adaptation is that it relies on a global registry. I'm leery about global registries in general. One problem is that, because they're global, you only get one of them per program. I actually think the very existince of copy_reg is wrongheaded, because it assumes that in any given program there will be one correct way to copy any given type of object. On the extremely rare occasions when I want to deep-copy something, I have very specific ideas on how deeply I want to copy it, and that could vary from one situation to another. I wouldn't trust anything found in a global registry to do the right thing. Another problem is that, because they're global, any part of the program can put stuff in them that gets used by any other part, without its explicit knowledge. This can make it hard to tell what any given piece of code is going to do without searching the whole program. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
