"M.-A. Lemburg" <mal@lemburg.com> writes:
> Michael Hudson wrote:
> > I must admit I can't think of a situation where .firstkey would be
> > more useful than .popkey; I thought that this discussion was
> > discussion was inspired by the wish to write code like:
> >
> > while not set.empty():
> > x = set.popfirstkey()
> > ...
> >
> > Maybe I'm jsut being dense, though.
>
> Just curious: how would you get at the deleted value when
> using .popfirstkey() ?
You wouldn't. I was thinking of the dict-as-sets code that was being
flung around earlier.
> But you have a point: dict.pop() returning the first filled slot
> in the dictionary as tuple (key,value) would probably be most
> effective. It's also nice and short.
Yes.
> > FWIW, I think
> >
> > dict.firstkey()
> >
> > reads better than
> >
> > dict.firstitem()[0]
> >
> > if the former's what you're actually trying to say. Why not write
> >
> > for k,_ in dict.items():
> > ...
> >
> > ? (Overstating the case slightly for effect, but I hope the point is
> > clear).
>
> No, the point is that you can modify the dictionary within
> the loop. You wouldn't see any changes using the second technique.
I was trying to make an analogy between .firstkey/.firstitem and
.keys/.items - the
for k,_ in dict.items():
...
was meant to be compared to
for k in dict.keys():
...
Sorry for being obscure.
Cheers,
M.
--
"declare"? my bogometer indicates that you're really programming
in some other language and trying to force Common Lisp into your
mindset. this won't work. -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp
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