[Patches] [ python-Patches-917095 ] dict type concat function
SourceForge.net
noreply at sourceforge.net
Tue Mar 16 14:35:00 EST 2004
Patches item #917095, was opened at 2004-03-16 00:33
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by tjreedy
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=917095&group_id=5470
Category: Core (C code)
Group: Python 2.4
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: troy melhase (troy_melhase)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: dict type concat function
Initial Comment:
Adds a function to dictobject.c that allows python
expressions like:
>>> d = {2:3}
>>> d += {4:5}
>>> d
{2: 3, 4: 5}
and like:
>>> d = {2:3}
>>> e = d + {6:7}
>>> e
{2: 3, 6: 7}
A few points:
* I don't know much C, and this patch is probably
implemented much more appropriately by someone who
does
* I don't know if there's a good reason that the dict
type doesn't already supply this; if that's the case,
I'd be interested to know why not
* Lib/test/test_builtin.py fails (as it should) after
applying this patch
Please advise, and thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Terry J. Reedy (tjreedy)
Date: 2004-03-16 14:34
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=593130
I am usually big on orthogonality, but it never occurred to me
that dicts should be addible, although sets are. What should
be the result of {1:2} + {1:3}? If not something like {1:set
(2,3)}, the operator is *not* commutative.
The reference to sets and | is that | is used, I believe, for
set union (addition) (and & for intersection). So, if there
were to be a dict union operator, the symbol should be |
rather than +.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: troy melhase (troy_melhase)
Date: 2004-03-16 14:22
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=548370
1) adds new syntax but not new functionality
3) writing d.update(x) is clearer and more flexible -- in
Py2.4, update() can take the same arguments as dict()
The same is true of list.extend and list.append. After
years of writing python code, I still forget that I can't
add dictionaries to one another, which for me at least,
violates the principle of least surprise.
The patch doesn't provide the same behavior as the update
method; when adding two dicts, a third dict is returned.
Only in the case of augmented assignment is the update
method similar.
Moreover, every other basic container-ish type supports
addition of the same type (or similar type). It seems to me
that the dict type is missing a feature, not the other way
around.
2) concept doesn't usefully extend to - and *
I could see it extending to -, but you're right that it
doesn't extend to *.
5) possibly confusing given the | operator is used for sets
I don't understand this point, could you elaborate?
6) {1:4}+{1:7} is not commutative and unlike list addition,
there is no underlying order that makes the non-
commutativity obvious. IOW, the operator may introduce a
new class of hard to find bugs.
But unlike list addition, dict addition is commutative:
>>> d = {2:3}
>>> e = {4:5}
>>> d + e == e + d
True
Thanks for looking; could you advise again?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2004-03-16 06:08
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
I recommend against this for several reasons:
1) adds new syntax but not new functionality
2) concept doesn't usefully extend to - and *
3) writing d.update(x) is clearer and more flexible -- in
Py2.4, update() can take the same arguments as dict()
4) no use cases showing the + operator to be more
expressive
5) possibly confusing given the | operator is used for sets
6) {1:4}+{1:7} is not commutative and unlike list addition,
there is no underlying order that makes the non-
commutativity obvious. IOW, the operator may introduce a
new class of hard to find bugs.
If for some reason this gets approved, please assign back to
me for implementation, documentation, and unittests.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=917095&group_id=5470
More information about the Patches
mailing list