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. wrote:
>
>
This feels superfluous. Instead of creating new dict class I would propose
either:
1. Not to have None values
a) It is most likely possible to pre-delete all None values before you use
the dict = {k: v for k, v in dict if v is not None}
b) Not to create them in the first place (if it depends
This is basically PEP 505 – None-aware operators (
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,
On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 at 08:05, Jothir Adithyan wrote:
> 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
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
