On 5 March 2017 at 19:13, Ed Kellett <edk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we're going to have to just disagree. You won't convince me >> it's worth adding list.get unless you can demonstrate some *existing* >> costs that would be removed by adding list.get, and showing that they >> are greater than the costs of adding list.get (search this list if you >> don't know what those costs are - I'm not going to repeat them again, >> but they are *not* trivial). > > > They seem to be "it'd need to be added to Sequence too" and "it would mess > with code that checks for a .get method to determine whether something is a > mapping". It's easily implementable in Sequence as a mixin method, so I'm > prepared to call that trivial, and I'm somewhat sceptical that the latter > code does—let alone should—exist. >
You didn't seem to find the post(s) I referred to. I did a search for you. Here's one of the ones I was talking about - https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2017-February/044807.html You need to present sufficient benefits for list.get to justify all of the costs discussed there - or at least show some understanding of those costs and an appreciation that you're asking *someone* to pay those costs if you expect a proposal to add *anything* to the Python language seriously. But I quit at this point - you seem intent on not appreciating the other sides of this argument, so there's not really much point continuing. Paul PS And yes, I do appreciate your point here - a get method on lists may be useful. And helpers (if you don't name them well, for instance) aren't always the best solution. But I've never yet seen *any* code that would be improved by using a list.get method, so although I understand the argument in theory, I don't see the practical benefits. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/