On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:57:34PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Ahh, okay. So it's safe in the sense that it can't accidentally leak a
> confusing exception. Unfortunately a lot of people are going to assume
> that it means "will always give a useful return value". Definitely
> worth being very
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:00, Inada Naoki wrote:
> Please teach me if you know any algorithm which has no hole, O(1)
> deletion, preserving insertion order, and efficient and fast as array.
>
:)
About the hole, I was thinking that in theory the problem can be
circumvented using a modified versio
> On 01-Aug-2020, at 1:31 AM, Marco Sulla wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 at 12:57, Vinay Sharma via Python-ideas
> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Python has support for atomic types, I guess:
> Atomic Int:
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Include/internal/pycore_ato
You don't need locks with immutable objects. Since they're immutable, any
operation that usually will mutate the object, generate another immutable
instead. The most common example is str: the sum of two strings in Python
(and in many other languages) produces a new string.
This is usually slower
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:28 AM Marco Sulla
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:00, Inada Naoki wrote:
>
>> Please teach me if you know any algorithm which has no hole, O(1)
>> deletion, preserving insertion order, and efficient and fast as array.
>>
>
I would think the goal here would be to re-ord
[Steven D'Aprano ]
>>
>> The other simple solution is `next(iter(mydict.items()))`.
[Guido]
> That one always makes me uncomfortable, because the StopIteration it
> raises when the dict is empty might be misinterpreted. Basically I never
> want to call next() unless there's a try...except Sto
When writing some code now, I needed to produce a shuffled version of
`range(10, 10 ** 5)`.
This is one way to do it:
shuffled_numbers = list(range(10, 10 ** 5))
random.shuffle(shuffled_numbers)
I don't like it because (1) it's too imperative and (2) I'm calling the
list "shuffled" even before
I agree that calling random.shuffle imperatively is annoying. But I don't
think your proposed solution is readable. You're not taking a sample. A
sample generally implies a strict subset, usually quite a small one.
I've often thought there should just be a `random.shuffled()` function
which return
I would also prefer a `random.shuffled` function. The reason I didn't
propose it is because there's usually more resistance for adding new
functions. But in my view that'll be the best solution.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:17 PM Alex Hall wrote:
> I agree that calling random.shuffle imperatively is
I wrote some (better than the previously shared) benchmarks for this change
a while ago. They are run on cPython with a patch applied that implements
dict_views __getitem__() using a method similar to `lookdict` to perform
indexing on keys/values/etc.
Irrespective of where in the api this logic s
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:34 AM Guido van Rossum wrote:
> So maybe we need to add dict.ordered() which returns a view on the items
> that is a Sequence rather than a set? Or ordereditems(), orderedkeys() and
> orderedvalues()?
>
I'm still confused as to when "ordered" became synonymous with "Seq
On 8/1/2020 1:25 PM, Marco Sulla wrote:
You don't need locks with immutable objects. Since they're immutable,
any operation that usually will mutate the object, generate another
immutable instead. The most common example is str: the sum of two
strings in Python (and in many other languages) pro
Yeah, it is totally doable to refactor the collection ABCs to have
something in between `Collection` and `Sequence` that just supports
`__getitem__`.
But I would take Marco's research (and Inada's musings) seriously -- we
don't actually want to support `__getitem__`, because of the unpredictable
p
Can you not just use
https://more-itertools.readthedocs.io/en/stable/api.html#more_itertools.random_permutation
?
On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-4 Ram Rachum wrote:
> I would also prefer a `random.shuffled` function. The reason I didn't
> propose it is because there's usually mo
first()
https://more-itertools.readthedocs.io/en/stable/api.html#more_itertools.first
https://toolz.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api.html#toolz.itertoolz.first
last()
https://more-itertools.readthedocs.io/en/stable/api.html#more_itertools.last
https://toolz.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api.html#toolz.iter
PyArrow Plasma object ids, "sealing" makes an object immutable, pyristent
https://arrow.apache.org/docs/python/plasma.html#object-ids
https://arrow.apache.org/docs/python/plasma.html#creating-an-object-buffer
> Objects are created in Plasma in two stages. First, they are created,
which allocates
https://docs.dask.org/en/latest/shared.html#known-limitations :
> Known Limitations
> The shared memory scheduler has some notable limitations:
>
> - It works on a single machine
> - The threaded scheduler is limited by the GIL on Python code, so if your
operations are pure python functions, you s
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:34 AM Christopher Barker wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:28 AM Marco Sulla
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 03:00, Inada Naoki wrote:
>>>
>>> Please teach me if you know any algorithm which has no hole, O(1)
>>> deletion, preserving insertion order, and efficien
Is there any reason that these features couldn't be added to OrderedDict
(which is a linked list)?
https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Objects/odictobject.c
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020, 9:13 PM Inada Naoki wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:34 AM Christopher Barker
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:42PM +0100, Stestagg wrote:
> Irrespective of where in the api this logic should exist, the
> implementation won't be algorithmically different, (I think, even with a
> `.ordered` view, as the view would have to cope with changes to the
> underlying dictionary over it
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 08:54:16PM +0300, Ram Rachum wrote:
> When writing some code now, I needed to produce a shuffled version of
> `range(10, 10 ** 5)`.
>
> This is one way to do it:
>
> shuffled_numbers = list(range(10, 10 ** 5))
> random.shuffle(shuffled_numbers)
>
>
> I don't like it bec
21 matches
Mail list logo
