On Mar 4, 2009, at 9:01 , Glenn Linderman wrote: > On approximately 3/3/2009 11:22 PM, came the following characters > from the keyboard of Raymond Hettinger: >>>> Perhaps the terminology should be >>>> >>>> ordereddict -- what we have here >>>> >>>> sorteddict -- hypothetical future type that keeps >>>> itself sorted in key order >> +1 > > -1 > > Introducing the hypothetical sorteddict would serve to reduce the > likelihood of ordereddict being interpreted as sorteddict among the > small percentage of people that actually read the two lines that > might mention it in the documentation, but wouldn't significantly > aid the intuition of people who first encounter it in someone else's > code. > > And without an implementation, it would otherwise be documentation > noise, not signal. Instead of introducing a sorteddict I would instead suggest that the future should bring an odict with a sort method; possibly also keys_sorted and items_sorted methods. I think this would simplify things and putting these methods into the odict documentation makes it clearer how it actually behaves for people that just scan the method index to get an impression of what the object is about. Regards, Gisle
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