I don’t see what is surprising. The interface for a dictionary never specified
the ordering of the keys, so I would not be surprised to see it vary based on
release, platform, values of keys inserted, number of items in the dictionary,
etc.
—
Gerard Weatherby | Application Architect NMRbox
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 4:42 PM Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> > Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's been true for a LONG time. The hashes
>> > for small integers have been themselves for as long as I can remember.
>> > But the behaviour of the dictionary, when fed such keys, is what's
>> > changed.
>>
>> I
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:25 PM <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> On 2022-08-02 at 07:50:52 +1000,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 07:48, <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2022-08-01 at 13:41:11 -0700,
> > > Dan Stromberg wrote:
> > >
> > >
On 2022-08-02 at 07:50:52 +1000,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 07:48, <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 2022-08-01 at 13:41:11 -0700,
> > Dan Stromberg wrote:
> >
> > > keys = [5, 10, 15, 14, 9, 4, 1, 2, 8, 6, 7, 12, 11]
> > >
> > > dict_ = {}
> > > for key i
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 07:48, <2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com> wrote:
>
> On 2022-08-01 at 13:41:11 -0700,
> Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> > keys = [5, 10, 15, 14, 9, 4, 1, 2, 8, 6, 7, 12, 11]
> >
> > dict_ = {}
> > for key in keys:
> > dict_[key] = 1
>
> $ python
> Python 3.10.5 (main, Jun 6 2
On 2022-08-01 at 13:41:11 -0700,
Dan Stromberg wrote:
> keys = [5, 10, 15, 14, 9, 4, 1, 2, 8, 6, 7, 12, 11]
>
> dict_ = {}
> for key in keys:
> dict_[key] = 1
$ python
Python 3.10.5 (main, Jun 6 2022, 18:49:26) [GCC 12.1.0] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 1:41 PM Dan Stromberg wrote:
> On 1.4 through 2.1 I got descending key order. I expected the keys to be
> scattered, but they weren't.
>
I just noticed that 1.4 was ascending order too - so it was closer to 2.2
than 1.5.
I guess that's kind of beside the point though - it
On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 06:50, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>
> >
> > So I decided to write a little test program to run on a variety of
> > CPythons, to confirm what I was thinking.
> >
> > And instead I got a surprise.
> >
> > On 1.4 through 2.1 I got descending key order. I expected the keys to be
> >
>
> So I decided to write a little test program to run on a variety of
> CPythons, to confirm what I was thinking.
>
> And instead I got a surprise.
>
> On 1.4 through 2.1 I got descending key order. I expected the keys to be
> scattered, but they weren't.
>
> On 2.2 through 3.5 I got ascending ke
Hi folks.
I'm still porting some code from Python 2.7 to 3.10.
As part of that, I saw a list being extended with a dict.values(), and
thought perhaps it wasn't ordered as intended on Python 2.7, even though
the problem would conceivably just disappear on 3.10.
So I decided to write a little test
On Mon, 29 May 2017 12:15 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2017-05-28, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>> What exactly did you think I got wrong?
>
> 3.6 does preserve the dict order. It isn't a guarantee so may change
> in future versions, but it is what 3.6 actually does.
Did I say it didn't?
I said you ca
On May 28, 2017 8:23 AM, "Jon Ribbens" wrote:
> On 2017-05-28, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
>> What exactly did you think I got wrong?
>
> 3.6 does preserve the dict order. It isn't a guarantee so may change
> in future versions, but it is what 3.6 actually does.
No, it's what CPython 3.6 actually does
On 2017-05-28, Steve D'Aprano wrote:
> What exactly did you think I got wrong?
3.6 does preserve the dict order. It isn't a guarantee so may change
in future versions, but it is what 3.6 actually does.
>> If you're asking "given a fixed Python version, and where appropriate
>> PYTHONHASHSEED=0,
On Sun, 28 May 2017 11:12 pm, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2017-05-28, Bill Deegan wrote:
>> As a follow up to a discussion on IRC #python channel today.
>>
>> Assuming the same order of insertions of the same items to a dictionary
>> would the iteration of a dictionary be the same (not as the order o
On 2017-05-28, Bill Deegan wrote:
> As a follow up to a discussion on IRC #python channel today.
>
> Assuming the same order of insertions of the same items to a dictionary
> would the iteration of a dictionary be the same (not as the order of
> insertion, just from run to run) for Python 2.7 up t
> insertion, just from run to run) for Python 2.7 up to python 3.3?
That's not a language promise. The dictionary order is explicitly an
implementation detail.
It might happen to be true by *accident* that different versions of Python give
the same order, but that's not guaran
Greetings,
As a follow up to a discussion on IRC #python channel today.
Assuming the same order of insertions of the same items to a dictionary
would the iteration of a dictionary be the same (not as the order of
insertion, just from run to run) for Python 2.7 up to python 3.3? And again
at Pytho
17 matches
Mail list logo
