Feature Requests item #1275677, was opened at 2005-08-29 08:49
Message generated for change (Settings changed) made by rhettinger
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=1275677&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Python Interpreter Core
Group: None
>Status: Closed
>Resolution: Rejected
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou)
Assigned to: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Summary: add a get() method to sets
Initial Comment:
Hi,
I would like to propose a new method for the builtin
set objects. Currently we have a pop() method which
pops an element from the set. What I often need,
though, is a method that gets an arbitrary element
without removing it (because adding / removing stuff is
dealt with in
another part of the program).
Right now the simplest way to do that is :
value = iter(my_set).next()
There are two problems with this:
1. it's ugly and not very intuitive
2. it is not atomic; this means if another thread
updates the set, I can get a "RuntimeError: dictionary
changed size during iteration" (btw, the message is
slightly wrong, it should be "set" instead of "dictionary")
Although the first problem is rather minor (but
annoying nevertheless), the second one is a real
showstopper in some cases - yes, I did encounter it for
real.
There is a way to avoid the second problem :
value = list(my_set)[0]
But of course, not only it is still ugly, but it is
also highly inefficient when the set is big. So in the
end I am forced to use an explicit lock around the
aforementioned construct (value = iter(my_set).next())
as well as around any other piece of code that can
update the set from another thread. This is tedious and
error-prone, and probably a bit inefficient.
So for the bottom line: it would be in some cases very
useful to have an atomic get() method in addition to
the pop() method on sets. (it could probably be applied
to frozensets and dicts too)
The implementation would probably not be very
difficult, since it's the same as pop() with the
removal feature removed. ;) But I'm not familiar with
the Python internals.
What do you think ?
Regards
Antoine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou)
Date: 2005-08-31 08:50
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=133955
> Those two answers suggest this RFE is unnecessary. If you
> guys agree, please close. If not, I'll ponder it further.
> Right now, I'm disinclined to introduce a method that I
> think is awkward to use.
Well, closing the request is fine for me. Although I don't
think choose() would be very awkward to use, we can probably
live without it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-08-30 15:06
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
For the record, here are some research results.
Java's set objects do not have a choose() method:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/util/Set.html
In contrast, SETL does provide a function for extracting
arbitrary elements. The empty set case is handled by
returning Om which is a singleton object guaranteed not to
be an element of any set. The Om value is especially useful
in SETL because it can be passed upward through other
functions (much in the same way that NANs can trickle
through a calculation without killing it). Python has no
equivalent of Om.
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/~bacon/setl-doc.html#arb
Core Perl only has arrays and hashes.
Mathematica provides set operations on lists (union,
intersection, complement). Rather than having a set
specific function for extraction, list functions are used.
The one providing choose-like functionality is First(). It
is equivalent to indexing: a[0]
http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/functions/First
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-08-30 06:47
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
> > Question for everyone: Is there any known application for
> > choose() that isn't met by pop()/add() irrespective of
> > whether it "feels right"?
[Antoine]
> I don't think so indeed.
[mwh]
> Mmm, the "v, = s" approach hadn't occurred to me and it
> seems ok.
Those two answers suggest this RFE is unnecessary. If you
guys agree, please close. If not, I'll ponder it further.
Right now, I'm disinclined to introduce a method that I
think is awkward to use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2005-08-30 02:03
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6656
Mmm, the "v, = s" approach hadn't occurred to me and it seems ok. The
others are all rather horribly indirect... (and, obviously, it's not about
"need").
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou)
Date: 2005-08-29 18:09
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=133955
Hi again,
> Antoine, yes a pop()/add() combination is efficient.
Ok, thanks.
> IMO,
> it also clear in intent, easy to write, flexible enough for
> a variety of applications, the pop() is atomic,
Small correction: the pop() is atomic, but the pop/add
sequence is not, AFAIU ;)
> Question for Antoine: Have you ever had this need with
> other containers?
I think I had it for a dict sometime. For lists and tuples,
you can just use my_container[0] of course.
But sets are often used differently than dicts IMHO. Dicts
are mappings: you give a precise key and get the exact value
associated with it. Sets are bags: sometimes you just want
to pick an item, as you would do in a real bag, without
looking inside to choose a specific item.
> Since choose() would not be a
> mutating method, it would also apply to frozensets. Does it
> have any use there? Any appearance in a loop would be farce
> since it would always return the same value (the frozenset
> never mutates).
The variable to which you apply the method call could
reference another frozenset on the next loop iteration...
Yes, it doesn't sound very frequent.
> Question for everyone: Is there any known application for
> choose() that isn't met by pop()/add() irrespective of
> whether it "feels right"?
I don't think so indeed. (it would be the case if the API
guaranteed atomicity in the case of single bultin method
calls like choose())
> For applications other than Michael's, we won't know the
> size of the set in advance. Are there any examples of using
> choose() that won't have to have ugly EAFP or LBYL code to
> handle the case where the set is empty?
First, sometimes you know the set is non-empty without
knowing its size in advance (for example you are inside a
big block beginning with "if len(my_set)"). Second, error
catching is still needed with other alternatives (you either
have to catch KeyError when doing s.pop(), or StopIteration
when doing iter(s).next()).
> Rather than a method just for sets, is it a more appropriate
> solution to have a generic function that takes any iterable
> and returns its first element:
Well, I thought global builtin functions were less favoured
than methods. But this doesn't sound stupid. On the other
hand, generic functions are less easy to find about (usually
if I want to have the set API, I type help(set) in a Python
shell which I always have open. But there is no quick way to
have a list of the builtin functions that can apply to
iterables (*)). In my experience, I often forget about the
generic builtin functions that come with Python - maybe
that's just me.
(*) if there was a base type "iterable" with the generic
method first() defined on it, as well as some of the other
functions defined in the itertools module, it would probably
be more elegant and more frequently used.
Anyway, if the concern with builtin types is to avoid
bloating the API, then I admit that it's a fair concern and
that the motivation to add the choose() method might indeed
not be convincing enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-08-29 17:30
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
Exploratory questions:
Michael, if you know there is only one element in a set, do
you really need a custom method just to extract it? There
are so many other ways. Given s=set([7]):
1) x = list(s)[0]
2) x = s.pop()
3) x, = s
4) x = max(s)
yada yada yada
Antoine, yes a pop()/add() combination is efficient. IMO,
it also clear in intent, easy to write, flexible enough for
a variety of applications, the pop() is atomic, and the
approach also works with other mutable containers (dicts,
lists, deques).
Question for Antoine: Have you ever had this need with
other containers? For instance, how do you find an
arbitrary key in a dictionary without popping, iterating, or
listing it?
Question for everyone: Since choose() would not be a
mutating method, it would also apply to frozensets. Does it
have any use there? Any appearance in a loop would be farce
since it would always return the same value (the frozenset
never mutates).
Question for everyone: Is there any known application for
choose() that isn't met by pop()/add() irrespective of
whether it "feels right"?
For applications other than Michael's, we won't know the
size of the set in advance. Are there any examples of using
choose() that won't have to have ugly EAFP or LBYL code to
handle the case where the set is empty?
Rather than a method just for sets, is it a more appropriate
solution to have a generic function that takes any iterable
and returns its first element:
def getfirst(it):
for elem in it:
return elem
raise ValueError('iterator is empty')
A function like this would work with almost anything:
first(dict(a=1, b=2))
first(set([1, 2]))
first([1,2])
first(open('myfile.txt'))
. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Michael Hudson (mwh)
Date: 2005-08-29 15:42
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=6656
_My_ use case for something like this is applying a series of constraints
as set intersections until the set has one element; then I want to know
what that element *is*. I could probably use .pop(), but it feels wrong, and
I know I can (and indeed do) do iter(theSet).next() but that's obscure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou)
Date: 2005-08-29 14:16
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=133955
> When choosing a ready object, you pop it to unready
> because you're using it -- put it back in if the current use
> won't cause blocking, or when that use finishes.
That's not exactly my semantics (objects remain ready until
they explicitly tell the contrary: for example a queue
remains ready until it becomes empty), but I can live with a
pop() / add() sequence provided it is efficient. Is it ?
Otherwise I may go for "elem = iter(my_set).next()".
Thanks for the very prompt answers, btw :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Jim Jewett (jimjjewett)
Date: 2005-08-29 14:07
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=764593
This does look like pop might be a better choice.
When choosing a ready object, you pop it to unready
because you're using it -- put it back in if the current use
won't cause blocking, or when that use finishes.
When choosing a waiting ready thread, either the thread
is no longer ready (so put it back in waiting, but you don't
want it in ready), or it runs (so it should no longer be in
waiting).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou)
Date: 2005-08-29 13:31
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=133955
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed reply. So, atomicity cannot be
guaranteed. I understand that (you might tell it to the
Twisted folks by the way, because as far as I've seen some
of their code relies on list operations being atomic in
CPython ;-)). Remains the simplicity argument.
As for the first objection: my set is mutated in the loop in
ways that I cannot predict (because each element in the set
points me in turn to a user-defined callback that will often
alter the set ;-)). That explains why it *is* useful to get
the "first" element repeatedly: the "first" element changes
very often.
As for the use case : I'm writing a small cooperative
multithread package using generators (mostly for fun, but
I'll be glad if it pleases others too):
https://developer.berlios.de/projects/tasklets/
Scheduling is based on "wait objects": when a wait object
becomes ready, it is added to the set of ready objects and
the main loop takes an element from this set and asks it for
one of the threads waiting on the object. It is the set I'm
talking about ;) Sometimes the readiness of one of those
objects can be changed from another thread (for now I'm
using a helper thread for timers, and perhaps also for other
things in the future - IO, wxWidgets integration, etc.).
The main loop is in the Switcher.run() method towards the
end of the following file:
http://svn.berlios.de/viewcvs/tasklets/trunk/softlets/core.py?view=markup
As you see, I actually do a "for" on the set, but I always
break of the "for" loop after the first iteration... Which
is not very elegant and understandable for the reader.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger)
Date: 2005-08-29 12:10
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=80475
We've looked at a choose() method a couple of times and
rejected it. Since the method gets an arbitrary element, it
might as well get the first one it sees. But that is of
little use in a loop (when do you ever need to get the same
object over and over again?).
Also, a choose method() would need to raise a KeyError if
the set if emtpy and/or provide a default argument like
dict.get() does. This complicates the heck out of using it.
Put the two together and the idea loses any charm.
Also, for mutable sets, a better approach is to pop()
elements from the set and add them back when you're done
with them.
I'm not too concerned about atomicity. For one, that is
almost never a good guide to API design. Second, it is
implementation dependent (i.e. no guarantees for PyPy or
Jython). Three, it generally indicates a problem in your
design (if the set could mutate smaller during a thread
accessing the set, then you have a race condition where the
set could shrink to zero or not). Four, the right way to
deal with atomicity issues is to use locks or control access
via Queue.
I do understand that basic motivation (I have a set, now how
do I a representative element) but find the proposal
lacking. It just doesn't do much for us.
BTW, please post your use case (in a condensed form that
gets to the essentials of why you think this method is needed)..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=355470&aid=1275677&group_id=5470
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
