Thoughts on new vs traditional idioms
python at rcn.com
Sun Feb 29 22:20:45 CET 2004
> This is the first time I've seen the init as update idiom
That's why I made this post. I don't think everyone knows that the
type constructor is good for copying and that __init__ can be called
on existing objects.
> this is clearly
> not a case of love at first sight. Objects cumulating data over subsequent
> calls of __init__() seems unintuitive to me.
It certainly lacks beauty. OTOH, any uses of it are portable back to
Py2.2 and it is much faster and more memory efficient than creating a
temporary dictionary to pass to dict.update().
Also, the aesthetics can be restored by defining a synonym:
itemupdate = dict.__init__
The important point is that the functionality is already available and
most folks don't know about it.
> Why isn't dict.update() enhanced to handle all three cases? You might
> actually use the same implementation for both __init__() and update().
I've re-opened Bob's patch with this alternate implementation of
making both use the same code.
More information about the Python-list