Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: On Sep 27, 2014, at 04:15 PM, Ram Rachum wrote:
>The main principle is: If something has an important property (in this case >an enum object's numerical value), it should be publicly exposed. I think this is a misunderstanding. Only IntEnum members have a defined numerical value. Base Enum members have no inherent value semantics except their existence. The *syntax* of using integers for values is simply a convention and one that's not even necessary for Enums to work properly. Enum members are also defined to be unordered, so their serial number is meaningless. The fact that __members__ is an ordered dictionary is a convenient implementation detail that's only exposed in the API to support iteration over all members including aliases. Let me say specifically that I am opposed to int() for coercion for non-IntEnums because Enum values can be anything. Likewise, member.number is also a misnomer in this case: >>> from enum import Enum >>> class Colors(Enum): ... a = 'a' ... b = 'b' ... c = 'c' ... >>> Colors.a is Colors.b False >>> Colors.a is Colors.a True I think using IntEnums or a subclass to provide a convenient wrapper around __members__ iteration is the only thing that makes sense here, but I still don't think the stdlib needs to support it. IMHO, this is a case where adding to the public stdlib API would provide more complexity for little common benefit. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22505> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
