Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

Here's one argument why sequence unpacking is more important than dict unpacking. Without sequence unpacking, you have a long sequence, to get at a specific item you'd need to use indexing, where you often end up having to remember the indices for each type of information. Say you have points of

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

I must say I can't really see the point either. If you say like: > {'a': a, 'b': b, **c} = {'a': 1, **{'b': 2}} Do you basically mean: c = {'a': 1, **{'b': 2}} a = c.pop("a") b = c.pop("b") # ? That's the only thing I could think of. I think most of these problems could be solved with pop

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:29:08PM +0800, Thautwarm Zhao wrote: > I'm focused on the consistency of the language itself. Consistency is good, but it is not the only factor to consider. We must guard against *foolish* consistency: adding features just for the sake of matching some other, often

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

Your library seems difficult to extract values from nested dictionary, and when the key is not an identifier it's also embarrassed. For sure we can have a library using graphql syntax to extract data from the dict of any schema, but that's not my point. I'm focused on the consistency of the

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

On 9 April 2018 at 22:10, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 at 05:18 Joao S. O. Bueno wrote: >> >> we could even call this approach a name such as "function call". > > > The harsh sarcasm is not really called for. Indeed - on rereading, I

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 at 05:18 Joao S. O. Bueno wrote: > I have an idea for an inovative, unanbiguous, straightforward and > backwards compatible syntax for that, > that evena llows one to pass metadata along the operation so that the > results can be tweaked acording > to

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

I have an idea for an inovative, unanbiguous, straightforward and backwards compatible syntax for that, that evena llows one to pass metadata along the operation so that the results can be tweaked acording to each case's needs. What about: new_data = dict_feed({ "direct": "some data",

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

There was a long thread last year on a subject, titled "Dictionary destructing and unpacking.": https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2017-June/045963.html You might want to read through it and see what ideas and problems were raised then. In that discussion, there's also a link to

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

And this should print: 'some data' 1 2 3 On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Nikolas Vanderhoof < nikolasrvanderh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This would be a very handy feature, but Coconut (which is just python with > some extra functional-style features) also has support for this kind of >

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

Although that particular example once compiled to python will generate many many lines of code: ​ On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Nikolas Vanderhoof < nikolasrvanderh...@gmail.com> wrote: > And this should print: > > 'some data' > 1 > 2 > 3 > > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Nikolas Vanderhoof

Re: [Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

This would be a very handy feature, but Coconut (which is just python with some extra functional-style features) also has support for this kind of pattern-matching: http://coconut-lang.org ​Since Coconut will compile to Python (2 or 3) you can just write in Coconut and use the resulting code in

[Python-ideas] Is there any idea about dictionary destructing?

We know that Python support the destructing of iterable objects. m_iter = (_ for _ in range(10)) a, *b, c = m_iter That's pretty cool! It's really convenient when there're many corner cases to handle with iterable collections. However destructing in Python could be more convenient if we support