On Thursday 10 March 2005 17:29, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > 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)]. Or, alternately, we keep the last occurence, and move it to the new position. There's a wide number of different use cases, each with a slightly different final result, and for this reason alone I'm -0 on it for the library. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony at interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
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