On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> > Iterating over an iterable is >> > what iterators are for. > > set.get(), or set.pick() as Wikipedia calls it, isn't for iterating over > sets. It is for getting an arbitrary element from the set. > > If the requirement that get/pick() cycles through the sets elements is > the killer objection to this proposal, I'd be willing to drop it. I > thought that was part of the OP's request, but apparently it isn't. I > would argue that it's hardly "arbitrary" if you get the same element > every time you call the method, but if others are happy with that > behaviour, I'm not going to stand in the way.
It's arbitrary in the sense that the API doesn't make any assurances which item the caller will get, not that it's arbitrary for any particular * implementation*. > The purpose is to > return an arbitrary item each time it is called. If two threads get the > same element, that's not a problem; if one thread misses an element > because another thread grabbed it first, that's not a problem either. > If people prefer a random element instead, I have no problem with > that -- personally I think that's overkill, but maybe that's just me. I also think returning a random one is overkill, in the base set. And I'd have the base implementation do the simplest thing possible: return a fixed element (either the first returned when iterated over, or the last stored, or whatever's easiest based on the internals). For me, leaving the choice of *which* element to return on each call is a feature. It allows subclasses to change the behavior to support other use cases, like a random or round-robin behavior. -- Chris _______________________________________________ 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
