Talin wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
Armin Ronacher wrote:
Hi,
I noticed lately that quite a few projects are implementing their own
subclasses of `dict` that retain the order of the key/value pairs.
However half of the implementations I came across are not implementing
the whole dict interface which leads to weird bugs, also the performance
of a Python implementation is not that great.
I'm +1 - but this proposal has been made many times before and people
always argue about what features are needed or desirable. :-(
There's been a lot of controversy/confusion about ordered dicts. One of
the sources of confusion is that people mean different things when they
use the term "ordered dict": In some cases, the term is used to mean a
dictionary that remembers the order of insertions, and in other cases it
is used to mean a sorted dict, i.e. an associative data structure in
which the entries are kept sorted. (And I'm not sure that those are the
only two possibilities.)
I would be more in favor of the idea if we could come up with a less
ambiguous naming scheme.
I think Armin's proposal addresses this nicely by the analogy to lists:
the ordered dict is in key insertion order by default, but you can
invoke odict.sort() to sort it instead.
Given the synergy with the Py3k metaclass enhancements, I believe this
would be a good thing to have.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
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
