Message191466
| Author |
barry |
| Recipients |
barry, eli.bendersky, ethan.furman, ncoghlan, pitrou |
| Date |
2013年06月19日.13:41:29 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20130619094124.45ba8e80@anarchist> |
| In-reply-to |
<1371624343.74.0.0549181619169.issue17961@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On Jun 19, 2013, at 06:45 AM, Ethan Furman wrote:
>To sum up: the name is already available in the name, no need to have it be
>the value as well. I am open to changing the start value to zero instead of
>one (which is what I do in my customization of Enum in my personal modules ;)
I'm sure it's obvious that I prefer start-from-one, and aside from the
truthiness question, it would maximize compatibility with flufl.enum.
Besides, the functional API accepts a sequence so if you *really* wanted
start-from-zero, then you can do it easily. |
|