On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> wrote: > > With arbitrary order, it made sense to sort, so as to always give the > same > > "pretty" representation. But now that order is "part of" the dict itself, > > it seems prettyprint should present the preserved order of the dict. > > I disagree. Many uses of dicts are still conceptually unordered, even if > the dict now preserves insertion order. For those use-cases, insertion > order is of no interest whatsoever, and sorting is still "prettier". > and many uses of dicts have "sorted" order as completely irrelevant, and sorting them arbitrarily is not necessarily pretty (you can't provide a sort key can you? -- so yes, it's arbitrary) I'm not necessarily saying we should break things, but I won't agree that pprint sorting dicts is the "right" interface for what is actually an order-preserving mapping. I would think it was only the right choice in the first place in order (get it?) to get a consistent representation, not because sorting was a good thing per se. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker at noaa.gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20171218/9483d0ae/attachment.html>
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