> On 10 Jul 2020, at 15:38, Eric V. Smith <e...@trueblade.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/10/2020 9:20 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 13:47, Stestagg <stest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The intent of my statement was: The current implementation of dict does not
>>> allow any reasonable implementation of dict_keys/dict_values/dict_items
>>> with O(1) index behaviour. I.e. the performance scalability of any future
>>> changes to the dict_* types that add direct indexing is *not* likely to be
>>> adversely affected by changes to the implementation of dict(), unless
>>> somehow iteration in O(n) time becomes impossible.
>> So you're saying that you'd like to be able to index
>> dict.keys()/dict.values()/dict.items(), but are fine with O(n)
>> performance.
>>
>> OK,
>>
>> list(d.items())[n]
>
> Or next(itertools.islice(d.items(), n, None))
>
> There are multiple O(n) ways of doing this. If we're not going to require
> O(1), then I don't see the point of adding another ways of achieving the same
> thing. And I don't think we should require O(1): I wouldn't want to constrain
> any implementation for a niche use case.
I agree.
Ronald
—
Twitter / micro.blog: @ronaldoussoren
Blog: https://blog.ronaldoussoren.net/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/NSPUWPJYS7E6W7YRBPGKH5KFFQK5K5YW/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
