On 30Oct2009 20:43, Chris Bergstresser <ch...@subtlety.com> wrote:
| 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.
[...]
| > 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.
Personally, I'm for the iteration spec in a lot of ways.
Firstly, a .get()/.pick() that always returns the same element feels
horrible. Is there anyone here who _likes_ it?
Secondly, I think the thread-unsafe arguments are weak. Question: is the
existing set iteration scheme thread safe? i.e. does it return a fresh
iterator that a thread can happily use concurrently while another thread
uses its own iterator? (Absent set modifications). If the answer is yes,
then I don't buy the thread-unsafe complaints - there are already plenty
of thread unsafe things much as lots of iterators will break in the face
of changes to the data structures over which they're iterating. If
iter(set) gets you a safe iterator (absent set modification and multiple
users of that iterator) then thread safe methods exist and are easy to
use. No presently thread-safe program is going to be broken by adding an
iterating .get() method.
Thirdly, an iteration-like .get() is dead easy to provide: you just keep a
_single_, cycling, internal iterator made on demand the same way __iter__
already works. So why not do just do it? There's no need to construct it
before anyone calls .get() the first time. Somewhat like:
def get(self):
for x in self:
return x
raise something here
but not making a new iterator for every caller. Indeed, making a new
iterater per caller, in addition to being expensive, might easily return
the same element to every caller.
Do anyone feel an iteration capable .get() unduely burdens subclasses
that want to impement different .get()s? Both the suggested potential
subclass choices (round robin and random) suggest iteration capable
.get()s (presuming "random" means "shuffle order" rather than potentially
returning the same element twice).
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
Why doesn't DOS ever say EXCELLENT command or filename?
_______________________________________________
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
