On Wed., 18 Dec. 2019, 5:51 am Tim Peters, <tim.pet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But there are also other optimizations in the current set > implementation, so "fine, add the doubly linked list to sets but not > to dicts" is only part of it. > > Which may or may not be possible to match, let alone beat, in an > ordered set implementation. A practical barrier now is that Python is > too mature to bank on loving optimizations _after_ a change to a core > feature is released. It's going to need a highly polished > implementation first. > > Starting with "collections.OrderedSet" seems like a reasonable idea, though - that way "like a built-in set, but insertion order preserving" will have an obvious and readily available answer, and it should also make performance comparisons easier. Cheers, Nick. ______________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/YBKI7QVH2X3RIBJQ76BCN3WCSJUDWGWM/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
