On 25 Sep, 12:19, Paul Hankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recall sorted... > sorted(iterable, cmp=None, key=None, reverse=False) --> new sorted > list > > So why not construct sorteddicts using the same idea of sortedness? > > sorteddict((mapping | sequence | nothing), cmp=None, key=None, > reverse=None) > > Then we can specify the exact behaviour of sorteddicts: it's the same > as a regular dict, except when the order of keys is important they're > ordered as if they were sorted by sorted(keys, cmp=sd._cmp, > key=sd._key, reverse=sd._reverse). Here I imagine cmp, key and reverse > are stored in the new sorteddict as attributes _cmp, _key, _reverse - > obviously the actual implementation may differ. > > This has the benefit of making sorteddict's behaviour explicit and > easy to understand, and doesn't introduce a new sorting API when we > already have a perfectly decent one. > > The only problem here is the **kwargs form of the dict constructor > doesn't translate as we're using keyword args to pass in the sort > criterion. Perhaps someone has an idea of how this can be solved. If > nothing else, this constructor could be dropped for sorteddicts, and > sorteddict(dict(**kwargs), cmp=..., key=..., reverse=...) when that > behaviour is wanted. > > I don't like the integral indexing idea or the slicing: indexing and > slicing are already part of python and it's bad to have different > syntax for the same concept on sorteddicts. I'd say it's not an > important enough for sorteddicts anyway. > > -- > Paul Hankin
This makes a lot of sense to me. But how do you envisage it would be implemented? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
