[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bengt Richter wrote: > > For me the implication of "sorted" is that there is a sorting algorithm > > that can be used to create an ordering from a prior state of order, > > whereas "ordered" could be the result of arbitrary permutation, e.g., > > manual shuffling, etc. Of course either way, a result can be said > > to have a particular defined order, but "sorted" gets ordered > > by sorting, and "ordered" _may_ get its order by any means. > > > But Alex seems to think that based on another external table should be > classified as "sorted" whereas I would consider it as "manual > shuffling", thus "ordered". > > I may be wrong it interpreting him though, which is why I want to > clarify.
What you can obtain (or anyway easily simulate in terms of effects on a loop) through an explicit call to the 'sorted' built-in, possibly with a suitable 'key=' parameter, I would call "sorted" -- exactly because, as Bengt put it, there IS a sorting algorithm which, etc, etc (if there wasn't, you couldn't implement it through the 'sorted' built-in!). So, any ordering that can be reconstructed from the key,value data held in a dict (looking up some combinations of those in an external table is nothing special in these terms) falls under this category. But, a dict does not record anything about what was set or changed or deleted when; any ordering which requires access to such information thus deserves to be placed in a totally separate category. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list