Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> writes: > On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:26:27 am Ben Finney wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> writes: > > > The lack of get() in sets and frozensets is sounding more and more > > > to me like the victory of purity over practicality. > > > > What would be the input to ‘set.get’? > > It wouldn't take any input.
That is even less obvious. I would expect a parameter-less ‘set.get’ to get the set. Not terribly useful, but the name and function signature doesn't suggest anything else. > "get" is such a generic term that I don't believe that is a problem. The problem above is made less problematic by the fact that the function signature (e.g. ‘foo_dict.get(key)’) clarifies the answer to the question “get what?”. Whereas ‘foo_set.get()’ doesn't communicate much at all to the reader. If we want a method that gets one item from a set, perhaps the name can make it clearer: name it ‘set.getitem’. But which item should it get? The ‘__getitem__’ special method of lists and dictionaries requires an index or key as parameter. -- \ “Roll dice!” “Why?” “Shut up! I don't need your fucking | `\ *input*, I need you to roll dice!” —Luke Crane, demonstrating | _o__) his refined approach to play testing, 2009 | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
