Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Marco Kaulea <marco.kaulea@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Set Operations on Dicts
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 13:33:56 +0100
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <mailman.95.1454935075.2317.python-list@python.org>
References: <mailman.86.1454925476.2317.python-list@python.org> <lf5fux3xuov.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In-Reply-To: <lf5fux3xuov.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:102667

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Jussi Piitulainen <
jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> wrote:

> I think nobody was quite willing to lay down the law on which dictionary
> would take precedence when they have keys in common but different values
> on those keys. Both ways make sense, and sometimes you want something
> like arithmetic done to combine the values on common keys.
>
I don't expect this to be really useful. I only thought about using a set
as a second argument.


But that's an interesting proposal to only allow sets as the second
> argument. Those particular cases may not be *too* difficult to express
> as comprehensions, though still quite a mouthful compared to your
> suggestion:
>
That is the restriction I had in mind.

{ k:d[k] for k in d if k in s }     # d & s
>
> { k:d[k] for k in d if k not in s } # d - s
>
> That is basically what I did. But I expect this could be quite slow, since
it has to take
each value in s and perform a lookup in d. I would expect the pure set
implementation
to be more optimized.


Also, what would be the nicest current way to express a priority union
> of dicts?
>
> { k:(d if k in d else e)[k] for k in d.keys() | e.keys() }

This seems like it might be useful for default configurations, as that is
currently
quite the hassle to do with `x = conf.get('x', fallback="default")