On 22 April 2013 10:31, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Apr 22, 2013, at 09:31 AM, Tim Delaney wrote: > > >I'm fine with iteration order being by sorted name by default, so long as > >it's easily overrideable by enum subclasses or metaclasses e.g. an IntEnum > >should probably iterate in value order. > > It does</timemachine>. :)
I knew it *did*, but wasn't sure if with the current discussion it was going to continue to do so. > >For definition order, a 3.x-only metaclass could be provided: > > > >class Days(enum.Enum, metaclass=enum.DefinitionOrder): > > Monday = 1 > > Tuesday = 2 > > Wednesday = 3 > > Thursday = 4 > > Friday = 5 > > Saturday = 6 > > Sunday = 7 > > Yep, that's how it works. From flufl.enum: > > class IntEnumMetaclass(EnumMetaclass): > # Define an iteration over the integer values instead of the attribute > # names. > def __iter__(cls): > for key in sorted(cls._enums): > yield getattr(cls, cls._enums[key]) > Would it be worthwhile storing a sorted version of the enum keys here? Or do you think the current space vs speed tradeoff is better? I need to grab the current flufl.enum code and see if I can easily extend it to do some more esoteric things that my enum implementation supports (*not* bare names, but maybe the name = ... syntax, which of course requires the definition order metaclass). I'm in the middle of a release cycle, so my time is somewhat limited right now :( Tim Delaney
_______________________________________________ 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
