[Python-ideas] __iter__(), keys(), and the mapping protocol
mike at selik.org
Wed Sep 12 19:42:41 EDT 2018
I'm a little confused about what you're suggesting. You want to have a
Mapping that does not supply a keys method? What use case motivated your
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 7:04 PM Elias Tarhini <eltrhn at gmail.com> wrote:
> This has been bouncing around in my head for a while regarding the
> requisite keys() method on mappings:
> How come the ** unpacking operator, a built-in language feature, relies on
> a non-dunder to operate?
> To me, I mean to say, requiring that classes implement keys() – a method
> whose name is totally undistinguished – in order to conform to the mapping
> protocol feels like a design running counter to Python's norm of using
> dunders for everything "hidden". I am not sure if it feels dirty to anybody
> else, however. Interestingly, the docs already say
> <https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#object.__iter__> that *[f]or
> mappings, [__iter__()] should iterate over the keys of the container*,
> but it of course is not enforced in any way at present.
> So, then — how about enforcing it? Should __iter__(), for the reasons
> above, replace the current purpose of keys() in mappings?
> I'm not properly equipped at the moment to mess around with CPython
> (sorry), but I assume at a minimum this would entail either replacing all
> instances of PyMapping_Keys() with PyObject_GetIter() or alternatively
> changing PyMapping_Keys() to call the latter.
> Does it sound like a reasonable change overall?
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas