Le Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:13:53 -0700,
Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> a écrit :
> [starting new thread to not pollute the summary thread]
>
> On 04/28/2013 11:54 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:> On Sun, 28 Apr 2013
> 17:29:35 -0700
> > Ethan Furman <et...@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not only is this inconsistent with the rest of Python*, but it's
> >> going to be a PITA for data storage/retrieval:
> >>
> >> datastore = dbf.Table('storage.dbf', 'event_name C(50); date
> >> D; season SEASON')
> >>
> >> def retrieve_record(...):
> >> result = []
> >> for field_type, field_data in record:
> >> result.append(field_type(field_data))
> >
> > I've never seen any kind of "data retrieval" which works like that.
> > Would you care to explain us the context?
>
> The more specific context would be my dbf package, which works with
> dBase III, Clipper, and Foxpro tables. When the fields of a record
> are requested they are transformed into Python data types, with code
> that looks pretty much like that retrieve_record snippet (w/o all the
> error checks, etc.). And no, it doesn't support enumerations (yet).
Hmm, ok. So the context is the database adapter itself, right? I
wouldn't be shocked for a database adapter to have specific code to
handle various datatypes. My point was that this kind of code generally
doesn't leak into application code.
That said, I agree that the general constructor syntax should be
allowed on Enum instances. The inconsistency looks a bit gratuitous.
Regards
Antoine.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
