Benjamin Peterson schrieb: > 2009/3/1 Armin Ronacher <armin.ronacher at active-4.com>: >> Hi everybody, >> >> PEP 372 was modified so that it provides a simpler API (only the dict API >> to be exact) and it was decided to start with a Python-only implementation >> and replace it with a C version later if necessary. >> >> Annotated changes from earlier versions of the PEP: >> >> - the extra API for ordered dict was dropped to keep the interface >> simple and clean. Future versions can still be expanded but it's >> impossible to drop features later on. >> >> - To keep the implementation simple 3.1 / 2.7 will ship with a >> Python-only version of the class. It can still be rewritten in >> C if it turns out to be too slow or thread safety is required. >> >> The corresponding issue in the tracker: http://bugs.python.org/issue5397 >> Link to the PEP: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0372/ >> >> Anything else that should be done? > > Have you considered naming? I would think that "odict" or > "ordereddict" would be more consistent with other collections names > especially "defaultdict". We're already quite inconsistent with type name casing in the collections module, so it wouldn't matter so much. (Though I'd find symmetry with defaultdict pleasing as well.) Georg
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