[Tim] >> Seems an unrelated topic: would "iterators for dictionaries" solve the >> supposed problem with iteration order? [MAL] > No, but it would solve the problem in a more elegant and > generalized way. I'm lost. "Would [it] solve the ... problem?" "No [it wouldn't solve the problem], but it would solve the problem ...". Can only assume we're switching topics within single sentences now <wink>. > Besides, it also allows writing code which is thread safe, since > the iterator can take special actions to assure that the dictionary > doesn't change during the iteration phase (see the other thread > about "making mutable objects readonly"). Sorry, but immutability has nothing to do with thread safety (the latter has to do with "doing a right thing" in the presence of multiple threads, to keep data structures internally consistent; raising an exception is never "a right thing" unless the user is violating the advertised semantics, and if mutation during iteration is such a violation, the presence or absence of multiple threads has nothing to do with that). IOW, perhaps, a critical section is an area of non-exceptional serialization, not a landmine that makes other threads *blow up* if they touch it. > ... > I don't remember the figures, but these micor optimizations That's plural, but I thought you were talking specifically about the mutable counter object. I don't know which, but the two statements don't jibe. > do speedup loops by a noticable amount. Just compare the performance > of stock Python 1.5 against my patched version. No time now, but after 2.1 is out, sure, wrt it (not 1.5).
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