On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 03:27:23 +0100, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
Here's another use-case.
Using the 're' module:
import re
# Make a regex.
... p = re.compile(r'(?Pfirst\w+)\s+(?Psecond\w+)')
# What are the named groups?
... p.groupindex
{'first': 1, 'second': 2}
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 03:27:23 +0100, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
# Try modifying the pattern object.
... p.groupindex['JUNK'] = 'foobar'
# What are the named groups now?
... p.groupindex
{'first': 1, 'second': 2, 'JUNK': 'foobar'}
# And the match object?
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:04:29 -, dw+python-...@hmmz.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:47:59AM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
It would be nice to be able to return a frozendict instead of having the
overhead of building a new dict on each call.
There already is an in-between
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:47 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
After I hit send on my previous message, I thought more about your
example. One of the issues here is that modifying the dict breaks an
invariant of the API. I have a similar situation in the email module,
and I
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:47:59AM -0400, R. David Murray wrote:
It would be nice to be able to return a frozendict instead of having the
overhead of building a new dict on each call.
There already is an in-between available both to Python and C:
PyDictProxy_New() / types.MappingProxyType.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:37 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com wrote:
IMO, preventing someone from shooting themselves in the foot by modifying
something they shouldn't modify according to the API is not a Python
use case (consenting adults).
Then why have immutable objects at all? Why
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 10:10:07 -0700, Devin Jeanpierre jeanpierr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:37 AM, R. David Murray rdmur...@bitdance.com
wrote:
IMO, preventing someone from shooting themselves in the foot by modifying
something they shouldn't modify according to the API is
In article
CAPTjJmoZHLfT3G4eqV+=zcvbpf65fkcmah9h_8p162uha7f...@mail.gmail.com,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Jason R. Coombs jar...@jaraco.com wrote:
I can achieve what I need by constructing a set on the âitemsâ of the
dict.
On 2014-07-16 00:48, Russell E. Owen wrote:
In article
CAPTjJmoZHLfT3G4eqV+=zcvbpf65fkcmah9h_8p162uha7f...@mail.gmail.com,
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Jason R. Coombs jar...@jaraco.com wrote:
I can achieve what I need by constructing a set on the
I repeatedly run into situations where a frozendict would be useful, and every
time I do, I go searching and find the (unfortunately rejected) PEP-416. I'd
just like to share another case where having a frozendict in the stdlib would
be useful to me.
I was interacting with a database and had a
The PEP has been rejected, but the MappingProxyType is now public:
$ ./python
Python 3.5.0a0 (default:5af54ed3af02, Jul 12 2014, 03:13:04)
d={1:2}
import types
d = types.MappingProxyType(d)
d
mappingproxy({1: 2})
d[1]
2
d[1] = 3
Traceback (most recent call last):
File stdin, line 1, in
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Jason R. Coombs jar...@jaraco.com wrote:
I can achieve what I need by constructing a set on the ‘items’ of the dict.
set(tuple(doc.items()) for doc in res)
{(('n', 1), ('err', None), ('ok', 1.0))}
This is flawed; the tuple-of-tuples depends on iteration
I find it handy to use named tuple as my database mapping type. It allows you
to perform this behavior seamlessly.
-Mark
On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:04, Jason R. Coombs jar...@jaraco.com wrote:
I repeatedly run into situations where a frozendict would be useful, and
every time I do, I go
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 02:04:17PM +, Jason R. Coombs wrote:
PEP-416 mentions a MappingProxyType, but that’s no help.
Well, it kindof is. By combining MappingProxyType and UserDict the
desired effect can be achieved concisely:
import collections
import types
class
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 06:43:28PM +, dw+python-...@hmmz.org wrote:
if d:
d = d.copy()
To cope with iterables, d = d.copy() should have read d = dict(d).
David
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 13 July 2014 13:43, dw+python-...@hmmz.org wrote:
In its previous form, the PEP seemed more focused on some false
optimization capabilities of a read-only type, rather than as here, the
far more interesting hashability properties. It might warrant a fresh
PEP to more thoroughly investigate
16 matches
Mail list logo
