Paddy: > Mind you, Never rely on that implied ordering. Always use items().
Using dict.items() is probably better, but the manual says: >If items(), keys(), values(), iteritems(), iterkeys(), and itervalues() are >called with no intervening modifications to the dictionary, the lists will >directly correspond. This allows the creation of (value, key) pairs using >zip(): "pairs = zip(a.values(), a.keys())". The same relationship holds for >the iterkeys() and itervalues() methods:< Is this going to change? dict.keyset() seems nice, but you usually don't want to make a too much big API. Keeping APIs small is very important in Python, otherwise you need the manual to write code. I think a better solution to solve such key set problems is to optimize Python itself, so Python computes set(dict) really fast (it can just "copies" the hash of the dict). Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
