Taro Ogawa gmail.com> writes:
> Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> > There are three big use cases:
> > ...
>
> ...
Apologies - this was posted via gmane and the post I responded to appeared in
the gmane.comp.python.devel.3000 tree... I'll repost there (and check gmane a
little more carefully i
Nick Coghlan gmail.com> writes:
> There are three big use cases:
>dict.keys
>dict.values
>dict.items
> Currently these all return lists, which may be expensive in terms of copying.
> They all have iter* variants which while memory efficient, are far less
> convenient to work with.
Is
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> There are three big use cases:
>
>dict.keys
>dict.values
>dict.items
>
> Currently these all return lists, which may be expensive in
> terms of copying. They all have iter* variants which while
> memory efficient, are far less convenient to work with.
I'm still
Nick Coghlan wrote:
Darn, I'd hoped I'd caught that in time :(
Sorry folks.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
Paul Moore wrote:
> On 3/29/06, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Without a direct reason in terms of the language needing a
>> standardization of an interface, perhaps we just don't need views. If
>> people want their iterator to have a __len__ method, then fine, they
>> can add it witho
On 3/24/06, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do find it somewhat interesting that we're considering moving the standard
> containers to a more numpy-ish view of the world, though (i.e. one where
> multiple mutable views of a data structure are common in order to avoid
> unnecessary copyi
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
>> Its maps have methods to
>> return keys, values and items, but these return neither new lists nor
>> iterators; they return "views" which obey set (or multiset, in the
>> case of items) semantics.
>
>> I'd like to explore this as an alternative to
