[Python-ideas] dict.merge(d1, d2, ...) (Counter proposal for PEP 584)

INADA Naoki songofacandy at gmail.com
Tue Mar 5 03:31:16 EST 2019

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:23 PM Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:40 PM INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is why function and methods are better:
> >
> > * Easy to search.
> >
> > ## Merits of dict.merge() over operator +
> >
> > * Easy to Google (e.g. "python dict merge").
> This keeps getting thrown around. It's simply not true.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=%7B**d1%2C+**d2%7D
> First hit when I do that search is Stack Overflow:
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2255878/what-does-mean-in-the-expression-dictd1-d2
> which, while it's not specifically about that exact syntax, does
> mention it in the comments on the question. Symbols ARE searchable. In
> fact, adding the word "python" to the beginning of that search
> produces a number of very useful hits, including a Reddit thread on
> combining dictionaries, and PEP 584 itself.
> Please can people actually test these lines of argument before reiterating them?
> ChrisA

I'm surprised {**d1, **d2} is searchable.  But in my proposal, I compared with
one character operator `+`.

I switched my browser as English and Googled "python str +"


As far as I can see, top result is https://docs.python.org/2/library/string.html
When I search "+" in the page, it's difficult to find concat string.

I tried Google "python set union" and "python set |" too.
"union" is much easier to reach the answer.

So I don't think "name is easier to Google than symbol" is a fake or FUD.

INADA Naoki  <songofacandy at gmail.com>

More information about the Python-ideas mailing list