On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 07:32:37PM -0000, henr...@princeton.edu wrote: > Where is the discussion on this PEP going to be? In this thread, or a > new thread?
I see no reason why we cannot continue discussion in this thread. > Sorry for not having followed these closely enough to know. I'd like > to point out that boost-histogram and xarray (at least) would love > this as well, as we both (independently) came up with dict-in-index > workarounds for missing keyword arguments. xarray should already be in the PEP. Do you have an example from boost-histogram, and do you speak for the developers or just as a user? Can you give an example of where boost-histogram might use this? > Also, maybe a mention as to why simply making a new set of magic > methods, `__get_item__(self, *args, **kwargs)` for example, is not a > valid option? Having to add an additional three methods (get, set and delete) is a much more heavyweight change than proposed in the PEP, requiring more language changes, more changes to the interpreter, and some runtime costs. It will add significant confusion and code duplication between the old `__getitem__` and new `__get_item__` methods, especially if they are spelled so similarly as that. My recollection is that the PEP discusses this, but I might be conflating that with previous discussions on the mailing list. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/NHTUGJHLMAMS3PKFRAK7J7ONZS4LSPO5/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
