Sounds like that happens quite often. Yep, I totally agree with your point, I think I mentioned something like this in the post as a possible partial solution: a drop-in replacement for an ugly list compression people seem to be using now to solve the problem. It's easy to implement, but the adoption by community is questionable. I mean, if this is a relatively rare use case, but those who need it seem to have their own one-liners for that already, is there even a need for a method or function like this in standard library? To unify to improve readability (single standard "getitems" instead of many different get_n, gets, get_mutliple)? The only motivation I can think of, and even it is questionable.
On Nov 12, 2017 05:06, "Nick Coghlan" <[email protected]> wrote: On 11 November 2017 at 16:22, Jelle Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > 2017年11月10日 19:53 GMT-08:00 Ben Usman <[email protected]>: >> I was not able to find any PEPs that suggest this (search keywords: >> "PEP 445 dicts", "dictionary unpacking assignment", checked PEP-0), >> however, let me know if I am wrong. >> > It was discussed at great length on Python-ideas about a year ago. There is > a thread called "Unpacking a dict" from May 2016. I tend to post this every time the topic comes up, but: it's highly unlikely we'll get syntax for this when we don't even have a builtin to extract multiple items from a mapping in a single operation. So if folks would like dict unpacking syntax, then a suitable place to start would be a proposal for a "getitems" builtin that allowed operations like: b, a = getitems(d, ("b", "a")) operator.itemgetter and operator.attrgetter may provide some inspiration for possible proposals. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | [email protected] | Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com