On Aug 26, 2017, at 14:15, Yury Selivanov <yselivanov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Elvis just added it: > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0550/#replication-of-threading-local-interface
Thanks, that’s exactly what I was looking for. Great summary of the issue. > >> That said, if we have to use method lookup, then I agree that `.get()` is a >> better choice than `.lookup()`. But in that case, would it be possible to >> add an optional `default=None` argument so that you can specify a marker >> object for a missing value? I worry that None might be a valid value in >> some cases, but that currently can’t be distinguished from “missing”. > > Nathaniel has a use case where he needs to know if the value is in the > topmost LC or not. > > One way to address that need is to have the following signature for lookup(): > > lookup(*, default=None, traverse=True) > > IMO "lookup" is a slightly better name in this particular context. Given that signature (which +1), I agree. You could add keywords for debugging lookup fairly easily too. Cheers, -Barry
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
