On 12/17/19 2:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Without being facetious[1] if you don't care about performance, you don't need a set, you could use a list.
Lists don't enforce uniqueness. Apart from that a list would probably work fine for my needs; in my admittedly-modest workloads I would probably never notice a performance difference. My anecdote was merely a jumping-off point for the discussion.
"I don't care about performance" is not because I'm aching for Python to run my code slowly. It's because I'm 100% confident that the Python community will lovingly optimize the implementation. So when I have my language designer hat on, I really don't concern myself with performance. As I thought I said earlier in the thread, I think we should figure out the semantics we want /first,/ and /then/ we figure out how to make it fast.
I'll also cop to "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I lack this strongly mathematical view of sets others have espoused; instead I view them more like "dicts without values". I'm therefore disgruntled by this inconsistency between what are I see as closely related data structures, and it makes sense to me that they'd maintain their insertion order the same way that dictionaries now do.
//arry/
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XECNAHYHWKA2NIVJNM6652SK26NLO4FT/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
