I usually go with + only to find out that dict was something special here. ;-)
Then, I use .update only to find out, that it's in-place and I need to join more than two.
Then, I use some sort of dict comprehension or the dict constructor etc.

Naively, I would say + is what comes to mind easily. :D
Then, even sum(my_dicts) would work. ;-)

on-topic: Multiple arguments to dict(*my_dicts) just complements the alternative {**...} comprehension. So, it seems legit. +1

There's a long thread about the subject: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2015-February/031748.html

I suggest to avoid the matter altogether :)

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Mike Miller <python-ideas@mgmiller.net> wrote:

While we're on the subject, I've tried to add dicts a few times over the years to get a new one but it doesn't work:

    d3 = d1 + d2  # TypeError

Thinking a bit, set union is probably a better analogue, but it doesn't work either:

    d3 = d1 | d2  # TypeError

Where the last value of any duplicate keys should win.

-Mike



On 2018-04-12 06:46, Andrés Delfino wrote:

Extending the original idea, IMHO it would make sense for the dict constructor to create a new dictionary not only from several mappings, but mixing mappings and iterables too.

Consider this example:

x = [(1, 'one')]
y = {2: 'two'}

Now: {**dict(x), **y}
Proposed: dict(x, y)

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/