On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Ethan Furman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 09:34 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Ethan Furman <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 04/25/2013 06:03 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: >> >> >> The __call__ syntax has been repurposed for the convenience API: >> >> --> Animals = Enum('Animals', 'ant bee cat dog') >> --> Animals >> >> <Animals {ant: 1, bee: 2, cat: 3, dog: 4}> >> --> Animals.ant >> <EnumValue: Animals.ant [value=1]> >> --> Animals.ant.value >> >> 1 >> >> The aforementioned deprecated syntax refers to __call__ with a >> single arguments (the convenience API by definition >> requires more than one). >> >> >> I don't understand why having Enum() be the convenience function >> rules out `Animals(1)` from returning `Animals.ant`. >> >> >> Because we already have a way to do that: Animals[1]. Why do you need two >> slightly different ways to do the same? >> Moreover, why do you want to make Animals.__call__ behave very >> differently based only on the number of args? This seems >> to be un-pythonic in multiple ways. >> > > I think we're talking past each other (or I'm not awake yet ;). > > Animals is a class. Giving Animals a parameter (such as 1 or 'ant') > should return the instance that matches. This is how classes work. > > I don't understand your assertion that there is another way to call > Animals... do you mean something like: > > --> MoreAnimals = Animals('MoreAnimals', 'bird worm insect') > Yes, this works in the current implementation. But I'm realizing that the recent proposals of making isinstance(Color.red, Color) True will turn things around anyway so this discussion may be moot. Eli
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com