Georg Brandl <ge...@python.org> added the comment: First, lowering priority.
> I disagree that this is release-critical. I think it is desirable to > say that the dbm modules support most of a dict-style interface, > and I also think that it is factually correct to claim that they > currently do. Supporting only __getitem__, __setitem__, __delitem__, __contains__ and keys is already "most of a dict-style interface"? Only dumbdbm and bsddb, which isn't in the core anymore, support more methods. > The problem with the current documentation is that it apparently stopped > documenting the "dict-style interface", in the sense > http://www.python.org/doc/2.5/lib/typesmapping.html > did. Instead, the documentation now only documents the dict type itself. > If a dict-style interface was specified, one would have to specify > whether returning views from keys/values/items is part of the dict-style > interface or not. It should first be decided what a "dict-style interface" means in Python 3, then I can document it :) However, for the dbm modules I would be in favor of only specifying the four mentioned methods, as in the docstring of dbm/__init__.py, and not claiming any more. ---------- priority: release blocker -> critical _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue6045> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
