On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Skip Montanaro wrote:
> BAW> It would seem to me that distutils is a better way to go for
> BAW> kjbuckets. The core already has basic sets (via dictionaries).
> BAW> We're pretty much just quibbling about efficiency, API, and syntax,
> BAW> aren't we?
>
> If new syntax is in the offing as some have proposed,
FWIW, I'm against new syntax. The core-language has changed quite a lot
between 1.5.2 and 1.6 --
* strings have grown methods
* there are unicode strings
* "in" operator overloadable
The second change even includes a syntax change (u"some string") whose
variants I'm still not familiar enough to comment on (ru"some\string"?
ur"some\string"? Both legal?). I feel too many changes destabilize the
language (this might seem a bit extreme, considering I pushed towards one
of the changes), and we should try to improve on things other then the
core -- one of these is a more hierarchical standard library, and a
standard distribution mechanism, to rival CPAN -- then anyone could
import data.sets.kjbuckets
With only a trivial
>>> import dist
>>> dist.install("data.sets.kjbuckets")
> why not go for a more efficient implementation at the same time?
Because Python dicts are "pretty efficient", and it is not a trivial
question to check optimiality in this area: tests can be rigged to prove
almost anything with the right test-cases, and there's no promise we'll
choose the "right ones".
--
Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>.
http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html
http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4