So, in short, your idea is to allow "=" signs inside `[]` get notation to be translated
to dicts on the call, in the same way comma separated values are translated to 

I see no backwards syntax incompatibility in that, and the tuple-translation is
indeed quite a helper in many cases. The use cases for this even in existing
popular libraries, such as Pandas, is very clear. 

I am full +1 for this proposal - yes, it can help. 

I hope people can argue here and see the benefits without a lot of
bike-shedding - and if it turns out good, I offer to help
formalizing a  proposal for that. 

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:58, Caleb Donovick <> wrote:
While there is no restriction on passing dicts to getitem.  Doing so tends to be a bit ugly.  I have two main use cases in mind for this syntax.

The first  and perhaps the most obvious, is doing relational queries.
where_x_1 = db[x=1]

is more beautiful than
where_x_1 = db[dict(x=1)]  
where_x_1 = db[{'x': 1}]
# or by abusing slices
where_x_1 = db['x':1]
# or in the style of Pandas
where_x_1 = db[db['x'] == 1]

Beyond relational queries my own personal use case is a shorthand for dataclasses / protocols.
foo: ProtoRecord[x=int, y=int] = DataRecord[x=int, y=int](0, 1)
where `DataRecord[field0=T0, ..., fieldk=Tk]` generates 
class Record:

      field0: T0
      fieldk: Tk 
and `ProtoRecord[field0=T0, ..., fieldk=Tk]` generates a similar protocol.

Allowing key value pairs in geitem need not change the interface of getitem.   All the key value pairs could be collected as a dict and passed to getitem as the index. Similar to how the all the positional arguments are gather into a single tuple.
class Foo:
  def __getitem__(self, idx):

f = Foo()
f[x=1, y=2] # {'x': 1, 'y': 2}
This would make any legacy code using normal dicts as keys (I don't know how prevalent that is) automatically work with  the new syntax. 

There doesn't necessarily need to be support for mixing of tuple based indexing and keyword indexing. i.e.
obj[0, x=1] # SyntaxError

I don't really know anything about parsers but I think the grammar could be extended without issue with the following rule:
subscriptlist: ... | kwargsubscript (','  kwargsubscript )* [',']
kwargsubscript: NAME '=' test  
if `NAME '=' test` would result in ambiguity similar to argument it could be `test '=' test` with a block in ast.c

   -  Caleb Donovick
Python-ideas mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Message archived at
Code of Conduct: