On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Georg Brandl <g.bra...@gmx.net> wrote: > Benjamin Peterson schrieb: >> 2009/3/1 Armin Ronacher <armin.ronac...@active-4.com>: >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> PEP 372 was modified so that it provides a simpler API (only the dict API >>> to be exact) and it was decided to start with a Python-only implementation >>> and replace it with a C version later if necessary. >>> >>> Annotated changes from earlier versions of the PEP: >>> >>> - the extra API for ordered dict was dropped to keep the interface >>> simple and clean. Future versions can still be expanded but it's >>> impossible to drop features later on. >>> >>> - To keep the implementation simple 3.1 / 2.7 will ship with a >>> Python-only version of the class. It can still be rewritten in >>> C if it turns out to be too slow or thread safety is required. >>> >>> The corresponding issue in the tracker: http://bugs.python.org/issue5397 >>> Link to the PEP: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0372/ >>> >>> Anything else that should be done? >> >> Have you considered naming? I would think that "odict" or >> "ordereddict" would be more consistent with other collections names >> especially "defaultdict". > > We're already quite inconsistent with type name casing in the collections > module, so it wouldn't matter so much. (Though I'd find symmetry with > defaultdict pleasing as well.)
+1 for odict. Somehow I thought that was the name proposed by the PEP. :-( -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ 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
