"Daniel Stutzbach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have two proposals for Python 3000 that I'll write PEP(s) for if > there's interest. The first proposal is, I think, a modest one. The > second proposal is related, but more radical. I fully expect the > second proposal to be rejected for that alone, especially since I am a > relatively an outsider to the Python developer community (though it > was great to meet some of you at PyCon this year). I bring up the > more radical proposal primarily for completeness. [snip] > I recognize that the Python developer community is understandably very > attached to the current array-based list, so I expect this to get shot > down. I hope this doesn't reflect badly on the more modest proposal > of including a new type in the collections module. Also, please don't > kill the messenger. :-)
I would be +1 on including the object in the collections module in 2.6 and 3.0 . I've implemented variants of this particular structure using binary treaps a few different times. In terms of 3rd party extensions that rely on the interface of a list, one could probably use the extended buffer protocol being discussed, but it really isn't nearly as simple as just traversing the array of PyObject* that a list exposes. -1 on replacing lists (generally) with your tree implementation. Base types should be as simple as possible. - Josiah _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
