Hi Chris, On 15.05.13 13:32 Christian Tismer wrote: > Hi Raymond, > > On 08.01.13 15:49, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Raymond Hettinger >> <raymond.hettinger at gmail.com> wrote: >>> The current memory layout for dictionaries is >>> unnecessarily inefficient. It has a sparse table of >>> 24-byte entries containing the hash value, key pointer, >>> and value pointer. >>> >>> ... >> > > What is the current status of this discussion? > I'd like to know whether it is a considered alternative implementation. > > There is also a discussion in python-ideas right now where this > alternative is mentioned, and I think especially for small dicts > as **kwargs, it could be a cheap way to introduce order. > > Is this going on, somewhere? I'm quite interested on that. +1 I am also interested on the status. Many people seemed to have copied the recipe from the activestate site (was it?) but I wonder if it maybe was to cool to be progressed into "the field" or simply some understandable lack of resources? All the best, Stefan
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