Michael Foord wrote: > Armin Ronacher wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I noticed lately that quite a few projects are implementing their own >> subclasses of `dict` that retain the order of the key/value pairs. >> However half of the implementations I came across are not implementing >> the whole dict interface which leads to weird bugs, also the performance >> of a Python implementation is not that great. >> >> > > I'm +1 - but this proposal has been made many times before and people > always argue about what features are needed or desirable. :-( There's been a lot of controversy/confusion about ordered dicts. One of the sources of confusion is that people mean different things when they use the term "ordered dict": In some cases, the term is used to mean a dictionary that remembers the order of insertions, and in other cases it is used to mean a sorted dict, i.e. an associative data structure in which the entries are kept sorted. (And I'm not sure that those are the only two possibilities.) I would be more in favor of the idea if we could come up with a less ambiguous naming scheme. -- Talin
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