Dom Grigonis wrote: > I like this. Something that I would use for sure. > I have used a lot of: > ``` > (value: None | object ) or default > ``` > , but I stopped for obvious reasons. However, I miss those days, when I was > ignorant that this is not a good idea. > > On 11 Jul 2023, at 01:17, David Mertz, Ph.D. david.me...@gmail.com wrote: > > This is basically PEP 505 – None-aware operators > > (https://peps.python.org/pep-0505/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0505/). > > I've generally been opposed to that, but clearly some serious and smart > > Pythonistas have supported it. That PEP is a bigger lift than your > > suggestion, but correspondingly more general. > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, 6:04 PM Jothir Adithyan <adithyanjot...@gmail.com > > mailto:adithyanjot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > I would like to briefly present my idea regarding the `get` function > > commonly used with dictionaries. When working with large amounts of JSON > > data, I often encounter code that doesn't feel very Pythonic to me. > > Problem Statement: > > The `get` function allows chaining of method calls, which is quite useful > > when working with dictionaries. It also has a convenient `default` > > parameter that returns a default value if the key is not found in the > > dictionary. This feature makes it safe and easy to use. However, problems > > arise when the dictionary contains the key we are accessing, but the > > corresponding value is `None`. In such cases, subsequent `get` calls fail > > because the `get` method belongs to objects of type `dict` and not `None`. > > To address this, I propose adding a new parameter to the `get` function or > > introducing a new function called `get_or` that swiftly handles this issue. > > This new parameter, called `arbitrary`, would accept an arbitrary value to > > be returned by subsequent `get` calls in case the retrieved value of the > > key is `None`. > > Assumptions: > > The problem statement is based on a few assumptions: > > > > You prefer chaining `get` statements for cleaner code. > > You expect at least some of the `get` methods to return `None`. > > You want to avoid the hassle of using `try` and `except` for every `get` > > chain. > > > > If you fall into the category of people who wish for a simpler way to work > > with dictionaries and handle large amounts of data, I hope you can > > empathise with this proposal. > > I have made a simple implementation by modifying the `get` method, which is > > below this thread. I would appreciate your valuable input on this feature. > > Before diving into coding, I want to make sure this is not a bad idea > > waiting to reveal itself in the dark. > > Thank you for taking the time to read this thread. Your feedback is greatly > > appreciated. > > Best regards, > > Jothir Adithyan > > **Runnable Version** > > https://replit.com/@Adithyan71/GetOr https://replit.com/@Adithyan71/GetOr > > **Code Samples.** > > class PlayDict(dict): > > def get_or(self, key, arbitrary=None, default=None): > > if not self.__contains__( > > key > > ): # case 1 the key does not exist hence the default value > > return default > > elif ( > > self[key] is None > > ): # case 2 key does exist but the value is None return the arb > > value > > return arbitrary > > return self[key] # case 3 the key is present and the value is not > > None > > > > > > import contextlib > > parent_dict = PlayDict() > > parent_dict['k1'] = None > > parent_dict['k2'] = {"child_key": "val"} # Parent dict can contain nested > > dicts > > > > with contextlib.suppress(AttributeError): > > result = parent_dict.get("k1", {}).get("child_key") # This will raise > > AttributeError > > > > result = parent_dict.get_or("k1", default={}, > > arbitrary={}).get("child_key") # This will work > > > > print(result) > > > > > > Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org > > mailto:python-ideas@python.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org > > mailto:python-ideas-le...@python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.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/IELDCU... > > > > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/IELDCURRVQXCPGD4EPPLL7MYWJT4XHKV/ > > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/4BCGPZ... > > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > Hey Dom, thank you for your time.
Could you please provide a couple of reasons why this idea might not be favorable? I would like to have a clear understanding and ensure my assumptions are correct. Regards, Jothir Adithyan _______________________________________________ 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/4DZXMGL4UZ7HBGJB5MC2SCMLVSGVTQCW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
