Maybe dictionary unpacking would be a nice thing?
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'foo': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar, spam
42 23
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea?
-panzi
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008, Mathias Panzenb?ck wrote:
Maybe dictionary unpacking would be a nice thing?
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'foo': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar, spam
42 23
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea?
Horrible idea. ;-)
Aahz schrieb:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008, Mathias Panzenb?ck wrote:
Maybe dictionary unpacking would be a nice thing?
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'foo': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar, spam
42 23
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea?
Horrible idea. ;-)
And your argumentation on this is?
2008/3/31, Mathias Panzenböck grosser.meister.morti@gmx.net:
Maybe dictionary unpacking would be a nice thing?
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'foo': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar, spam
42 23
Bad idea.
It uncovers a lot of details for your brain to take care when doing that, for example:
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'not': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar
???
{'egg': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar
???
I would consider something like the following:
bar, spam = d.multiple("foo", "egg")
with the semantics of:
bar, spam = [d[k] for k in ("foo", "egg")]
Regards,
"Facundo Batista" facundobatista@gmail.com wrote in message news:e04bdf310804010613h56d11f19u5253b05602a14778@mail.gmail.com...
-1 because the need is way to rare for new syntax support and because
| bar, spam = [d[k] for k in ("foo", "egg")]
already does what is wanted in easily understood code.
tjtr
Facundo Batista schrieb:
2008/3/31, Mathias Panzenböck grosser.meister.morti-hi6Y0CQ0nG0@public.gmane.org:
Maybe dictionary unpacking would be a nice thing?
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'foo': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar, spam
42 23
Bad idea.
It uncovers a lot of details for your brain to take care when doing that, for example:
d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} {'not': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar
???
{'egg': bar, 'egg': spam} = d print bar
???
I would consider something like the following:
bar, spam = d.multiple("foo", "egg")
with the semantics of:
bar, spam = [d[k] for k in ("foo", "egg")]
We also have
bar, spam = itemgetter("foo", "egg")(d)
if some functional form is preferred.
Georg
Maybe just extend the functionality of the __getitem__ and __setitem__ methods of dicts?
class xdict(dict):
def __getitem__(self,key): if type(key) in (tuple, list): return (dict.__getitem__(self,k) for k in key) else: return dict.__getitem__(self,key) def __setitem__(self,key,value): if type(key) in (tuple, list): for k, v in zip(key,value): dict.__setitem__(self,k,v) else: dict.__setitem__(self,key,value)
d=xdict({'foo':23,'bar':42,'egg':'spam'}) d
{'bar': 42, 'foo': 23, 'egg': 'spam'}
d["foo",]
<generator object at 0x9dbc02c>
list(d["foo",])
[23]
list(d["foo","bar"])
[23, 42]
a,b=d['foo','egg'] a,b
(23, 'spam')
d['baken','bar'] = 'tomato', 36 d
{'bar': 36, 'foo': 23, 'egg': 'spam', 'baken': 'tomato'}
Well, this would break current behaviour, so actually no. Not good. But maybe that way (no conflict because lists are unhashable):
class xdict(dict):
def __getitem__(self,key): if isinstance(key,list): return (dict.__getitem__(self,k) for k in key) else: return dict.__getitem__(self,key)
def __setitem__(self,key,value): if isinstance(key,list): for k, v in zip(key,value): dict.__setitem__(self,k,v) else: dict.__setitem__(self,key,value)
d=xdict({'foo':23,'bar':42,'egg':'spam'}) list(d[["foo"]])
[23]
list(d[["foo","bar"]])
[23, 42]
a,b=d[['foo','egg']] a,b
(23, 'spam')
d[['baken','bar']] = 'tomato', 36 d
{'bar': 36, 'foo': 23, 'egg': 'spam', 'baken': 'tomato'}
The [[ ]] looks almost like a spacial syntax. Good or bad?
-panzi
On 31 Mar, 16:17, Mathias Panzenböck grosser.meister.mo...@gmx.net wrote:
Maybe dictionary unpacking would be a nice thing?
>>> d = {'foo': 42, 'egg': 23} >>> {'foo': bar, 'egg': spam} = d >>> print bar, spam 42 23
What do you think? Bad idea? Good idea?
I think this is one of the oddest things I've ever seen proposed until now. :) Actually I realized what was that for only after having seen Facundo's list comprehension translation.
participants (7)
-
Aahz -
Christian Heimes -
Facundo Batista -
Georg Brandl -
Giampaolo Rodola' -
Mathias Panzenböck -
Terry Reedy