Alex Waygood writes:
> the suggestion was to add two functions to itertools (first() and
> last(), which would work with any iterable,
OK, that wasn't obvious to me either, but good enough.
I see the analogy to str's startswith and endswith, but I'm still -0
on these. The names suggest indexi
On 2021-10-06 at 08:52:22 -0600,
Finn Mason wrote:
> I'm not a huge fan. Sure, dicts are ordered now, but I doubt that many
> people use that feature. I honestly still think of them as unordered
> ;)
+1 on still think of mappings as unordered (but finding myself screaming
Get Off My Lawn more an
> On Oct 6, 2021, at 10:53 AM, Finn Mason wrote:
>
>
> I'm not a huge fan. Sure, dicts are ordered now, but I doubt that many people
> use that feature. I honestly still think of them as unordered ;)
>
There’s tons of code that relies on dicts being ordered. Some just don’t know
it. For exa
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 11:17:07AM -0400, Eric V. Smith wrote:
> I think we can rely on dicts being ordered as a language guarantee for
> the rest of time.
Indeed. That's official and documented.
"Changed in version 3.7: Dictionary order is guaranteed to be insertion
order. This behavior was a
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021, 9:23 AM Ricky Teachey wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:55 AM Finn Mason wrote:
>
>> I'm not a huge fan. Sure, dicts are ordered now, but I doubt that many
>> people use that feature. I honestly still think of them as unordered ;)
>>
>
> I've seen several people say this so
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 10:55 AM Finn Mason wrote:
> I'm not a huge fan. Sure, dicts are ordered now, but I doubt that many
> people use that feature. I honestly still think of them as unordered ;)
>
I've seen several people say this so I'll be a voice on the other side: I
am not a pro developer
I'm not a huge fan. Sure, dicts are ordered now, but I doubt that many
people use that feature. I honestly still think of them as unordered ;)
Let's talk code clarity. After all, to quote GvR, "Code is more often read
than written." (I may have gotten the wording wrong, I just wrote it off
the to
+1. These would be handy for any iterable. It'll works on dict keys and
values; bonus.
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 15:42 +0100, Alex Waygood wrote:
> > Whether they are added to dict or itertools, there are still nine
> > of
> > them
>
> No, the suggestion was to add two functions to itertools (first(
> Whether they are added to dict or itertools, there are still nine of
> them
No, the suggestion was to add two functions to itertools (first() and last(),
which would work with any iterable, not just dicts), rather than adding nine
methods to the dict interface. This was precisely why I was sa
On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 11:11:09AM +0100, Alex Waygood wrote:
> > The temptation to insist "see, YAGNI!" at this point I shall resist.
>
> *You* might not need it, but I've seen it come up a lot on Stack
> Overflow, and all too often people end up going for the much less
> efficient solution. I
On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 08:45:55AM +0100, Alex Waygood wrote:
> I think there definitely should be a more obvious way to do this
> (specifically the first and last keys/values/items of a dictionary
What's your use-case for caring what the first and last key in a dict
is?
> An anti-pattern yo
> The temptation to insist "see, YAGNI!" at this point I shall resist.
*You* might not need it, but I've seen it come up a lot on Stack Overflow, and
all too often people end up going for the much less efficient solution. I
personally have also written code with practical applications using
`ne
Alex Waygood writes:
> Whereas obviously,
The temptation to insist "see, YAGNI!" at this point I shall resist.
> a much better way (especially if it's a very large dictionary) is
> to do:
>
> first_key = next(iter(mydict))
> [Inada Naoki]
> > I think we can add `itertools.first(
13 matches
Mail list logo
