It looks to me like dict.__copy__ is not implemented, does anyone know why it's not basically an alias for dict.copy?
If it's just random happenstance, presumably we could move dict.copy to __copy__ and then have dict.copy as an alias or thin wrapper. It might be desirable anyway for copy.copy to have a "fast path". On February 7, 2020 11:21:55 PM UTC, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >I agree that if we want to go down the road of creating a copy to allow >for subclasses then we should define a dunder method for such a use, >even if it's redundant in the face of dict.copy(). >_______________________________________________ >Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org >To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org >https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ >Message archived at >https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ON3E55CDBUDDHY4BEBYH25ZOKZH7HUDQ/ >Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/2QG4IE5GAQPPGCEY7JCE2VHZHGFYZIWK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
