Talin wrote:
> 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.
I think Armin's proposal addresses this nicely by the analogy to lists:
the ordered dict is in key insertion order by default, but you can
invoke odict.sort() to sort it instead.
Given the synergy with the Py3k metaclass enhancements, I believe this
would be a good thing to have.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
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