Using dictionary comprehensions in place of dict().#2386
Merged
dhermes merged 1 commit intogoogleapis:masterfrom Sep 22, 2016
Merged
Using dictionary comprehensions in place of dict().#2386dhermes merged 1 commit intogoogleapis:masterfrom
dhermes merged 1 commit intogoogleapis:masterfrom
Conversation
This is now possible after dropping support for Python 2.6.
Contributor
|
LGTM. |
Contributor
Author
|
@tseaver Indeed. It'd be nice if |
This was referenced Sep 23, 2016
parthea
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2026
This change fixes several numeric_ops test failures in #2248 Fixes internal issue 417774347 🦕
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is now possible after dropping support for Python 2.6.
Also tweaking a few places
dict(...)was used to copy a dictionary to just use.copy().We also have a lot of
dict(parse_qsl(...))going on, maybe we should useparse_qsand just deal with the slightly different output.Also, we have
@tseaver I seem to recall a discussion as to why this wouldn't clobber any repeated headers, but would like some clarification.