Raymond Hettinger added the comment:

> I don't suggest to change lru_cach() implementation just now

For now, I would like to have this closed.  It doesn't make sense at the 
current juncture (with the compact being new, being in flux, and not having 
guaranteed ordering semantics).

Also, we should have a strong preference for loose coupling and high cohesion.  
The lru cache code is principally about tracking recent and should maintain 
primary responsibility for the action, and the dictionary implementation should 
be primarily about a clean mapping implementation without having code baggage 
just for the lru).  

Besides that, there isn't much motivation for change.  The existing code is 
very good (clear, fast, decoupled, cohensive, and doesn't have compaction 
issues for cache hits).


Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
Python-bugs-list mailing list

Reply via email to