> This question is probably on its own a valid argument against the
> proposal. When it comes to dicts (and not Mappings in general) {**d1,
> **d2} or d.update() already have clearly-defined semantics.
Actually, in my mind, this is an argument for an operator (or method) —
besides being obtuse, the {**d1,**d2} syntax only creates actual dicts. If
we had an operator defined for mappings in general, it would be easier to
duck type dicts.
I think this is pretty compelling, actually. And also an argument for aging
the operation return the type it was invoked on, rather than always a dict.
I can’t find the latest draft of the PEP, so I’m not sure if this is
discussed there. But it should be.
-CHB
--
Christopher Barker, PhD
Python Language Consulting
- Teaching
- Scientific Software Development
- Desktop GUI and Web Development
- wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
