> > If I read the proposal correctly, order would be determined by when the > > key was first encountered. Presumably, that would mean that the related > > value would also be the first encountered (not overridden by later-added > > keys as dictated by your business requirements). > > Hmmmmm.... Guess this means we need a PEP! Or the implementation can have a switch to choose between keep-first logic or replace logic. The latter seems a bit odd to me. The key position would be determined by the first encountered while the value would be determined by the last encountered. Starting with [(10, v1), (20, v2), (10.0, v3)], the ordered dictionary's items would look like [(10, v3), (20, v2)]. Raymond
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