Talin wrote: > 1) values() should be documented as list-like rather than set-like. > (Or > better yet bag-like, but Python doesn't have bags. In other words, > it's > really an unordered collection of items with no special indexing > semantics or uniqueness constraint.) > > My reasoning is that generally people don't expect to be able to do > set > membership tests of the values of a mapping; Mostly, values() is used > for iteration. And given that all of the set-like operations are slow, > let's just cut to the chase and say that values() isn't a set at all.
I almost agree here, but the property that multiset(1, 2, 2) == multiset(2, 1, 2) seems useful for a dict values view. OTOH, how many people have complained that given d1 == d2, d1.values() may not equal d2.values() in 2.x? I've definitely never had any problems with it, but then again, I find it rare that I've needed values(). Tim Delaney _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
