On Jan 11, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote: > IMO, the chainmap() recipe on ASPN is a much better solution since > it doesn't create a third dictionary with the all the attendant > allocation and copying effort. I wasn't suggesting that the result of concatenation would be a chained table, rather that it would perform the equivalent of an update and return the new dict (the same way extend works for lists). > It isn't a common use case to need to sum two dictionaries while > keeping both of the inputs unaltered. Inplace concatenation could be implemented more efficiently but would be exactly the same as calling update. jared
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