On 6/29/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... dict is more basic, set is just a special case of > dict for performance reasons. Also, dict is used to define and implement > the language itself, set is "just" a predefined type. > I guess it can be seen either way, just as a chicken and an egg. Does python-3000 still plan to integrate sets and dicts so that a set is a view of a dict? That would support the view that a set is more basic (dict code will depend on set code but not the other way around).
If set has better performance than dict (which I have not noticed so far), it will be appropriate to use it in the language implementation where it can replace a dict. The prime example is the "interned" dict. >.... What should PyDict_Fini do? Release the dummy > object? That and a list of free dicts. > That can't work, and won't help. > Probably, but I am not arguing that PyDict_Fini is needed. Dict dummy should be static as well and free dicts list is probably not needed in the presence of pymalloc. > ... It is by design that you can use the dict API everywhere, since > dict is part of the language itself. set wasn't designed with such a > goal (the same is true for many other types, I would guess). That's probably the hart of my proposal. I would like to see sets usable as a part of the language, or an application that embeds the language everywhere where dicts can be used today. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
