Leif Walsh wrote:
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:53 AM, <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote:I actually like StableDict best. When I hear that I think, "ah, the key order is stable in the face of insertions, unlike a regular dict". Nor can I at the moment think of an alternative explanation of what a "StableDict" might be.Hmm, perhaps a better explanation than a hasty +1: "stabledict" makes me think of merge sort, being a stable sort.
Why merge sort in particular? Why not bubble sort, heap sort, insertion sort or any one of many other stable sorts?
Is this analogy really simpler than merely learning the fact that the dict keys are kept in the order they are inserted? It's not a very difficult concept. Why are we complicating it by inventing obscure, complicated analogies with utterly unrelated functions?
> In
the same way that merge sort doesn't needlessly swap elements while
sorting, stabledict might be thought to not "needlessly" swap elements
while {inserting, deleting}.
You're drawing an awfully long bow here. One might equally argue that in the same way that bubble sort does lots and lots of swapping, stabledict might be thought to be horribly inefficient and slow.
I also can't think of an alternative explanation, so thus far, it's resistant to false positive semantics.
"The keys don't expire with time." "It's stable against accidental deletions." "It's stable against accidentally over-writing values." -- Steven _______________________________________________ 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
