On Thu, Mar 31, 2016, at 09:17, Mark Lawrence via Python-list wrote: > On 31/03/2016 14:08, Antoon Pardon wrote: > > Op 31-03-16 om 13:57 schreef Chris Angelico: > >> Okay. I'll put a slightly different position: Prove that your proposal > >> is worth discussing by actually giving us an example that we can > >> discuss. So far, this thread has had nothing but toy examples (and > >> bogoexamples that prove nothing beyond that the author knows how to > >> mess with Python - fun, but not a strong argument on either side). > >> Give us some real meat to work with, instead of these drips of > >> tantalizing blood. > > > > What a strange request. Whether or not something is worth discussing > > is a personal judgement. So there can be no proof of such a thing. > > I would say: judge for yourself and act accordingly. > > Drivel. This is comp.lang.python, where "Practicality beats purity" > every time, not comp.theoretical.claptrap.
So can we discuss how a unified method to get a set of all valid subscripts (and/or subscript-value pairs) on an object would be a useful thing to have without getting bogged down in theoretical claptrap about the meaning of the mapping contract? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list