data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3e0ac/3e0ac840b08cb23b5e244d532f125a99e601599b" alt=""
Hmm, yea I had not thought of how it would look - I had thought formost of not needing to necessarily learn about bitsets.when learning about passing a large number of optional flags to a function. Although the default could be None, interpreted as an empty set of zero values.; a set of one or more enums does use more characters compared to or-ing flags... On Sunday, 31 December 2017 05:34:23 UTC, Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Franklin? Lee <leewangzh...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
Paddy might want something like this: - For existing APIs which take int or IntFlag flags, allow them to also take a set (or perhaps any collection) of flags. - In new APIs, take sets of Enum flags, and don't make them IntFlag. - Documentation should show preference toward using sets of Enum flags. Tutorials should pass sets.
I'm not keen on this recommendation. An argument that takes a Set[Foo] would mean that in order to specify: - no flags: you'd have to pass set() -- you can't use {} since that's an empty dict, not an empty set - one flag: you'd have to pass {Foo.BAR} rather than just Foo.BAR - two flags: you'd have to pass {Foo.BAR, Foo.BAZ} rather than Foo.BAR | Foo.BAZ
I think for each of these the proposal would be strictly worse than the current convention.
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)