This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | gpolo |
|---|---|
| Recipients | bethard, djc, gpolo, gward, rhettinger |
| Date | 2008年03月23日.22:12:47 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.082444236 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1206310368.42.0.838156840284.issue2444@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
There is another reason for considering __iter__ as a more pythonic solution here. If you print opts, it may lead you to believe that it is just a regular dict, while it is not. If you were just able to iterate over it, I think it would be more natural. I know you could check it and then you would know it is not a dict, but I still prefer adding a__iter__ method over using vars here. About optparse being maintained separately.. isn't there someone responsible that possibly checks this bugtracker ? If it is not the case, and if __iter__ is agreed as a good solution, I could send this to its own bugtracker then (if that is the best thing to do). |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年03月23日 22:12:48 | gpolo | set | spambayes_score: 0.0824442 -> 0.082444236 recipients: + gpolo, gward, rhettinger, bethard, djc |
| 2008年03月23日 22:12:48 | gpolo | set | spambayes_score: 0.0824442 -> 0.0824442 messageid: <1206310368.42.0.838156840284.issue2444@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年03月23日 22:12:47 | gpolo | link | issue2444 messages |
| 2008年03月23日 22:12:47 | gpolo | create | |