Message197989
| Author |
eric.smith |
| Recipients |
Arfrever, barry, eli.bendersky, eric.araujo, eric.smith, ethan.furman, georg.brandl, mrabarnett, pitrou, r.david.murray, rhettinger, sbt, serhiy.storchaka, theller, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date |
2013年09月17日.14:12:43 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<52386357.3060701@trueblade.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1379424857.28.0.36214787221.issue18986@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
On 09/17/2013 09:34 AM, R. David Murray wrote:
>
> R. David Murray added the comment:
>
> Because most often the time at which you want the original key is the point at which you are about to re-serialize the data...so you need the value too.
I can't think of a case where I'd need (original_key, value) where I
wouldn't also be iterating over items(). Especially so if I'm serializing.
On the other hand, I don't have a use case for the original key, anyway.
So I don't have a strong feeling about this, other than it feels odd
that the answer to the original question (I think on python-dev) "how do
we get the original key back?" is answered by "by giving you the
original key and its value". |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年09月17日 14:12:43 | eric.smith | set | recipients:
+ eric.smith, tim.peters, barry, theller, georg.brandl, rhettinger, pitrou, vstinner, eric.araujo, mrabarnett, Arfrever, r.david.murray, eli.bendersky, ethan.furman, sbt, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2013年09月17日 14:12:43 | eric.smith | link | issue18986 messages |
| 2013年09月17日 14:12:43 | eric.smith | create |
|