On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > Le Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:40:30 +0100, > Armin Rigo <ar...@tunes.org> a écrit : >> Hi Raymond, >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Raymond Hettinger >> <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Instead, the data should be organized as follows: >> > >> > indices = [None, 1, None, None, None, 0, None, 2] >> > entries = [[-9092791511155847987, 'timmy', 'red'], >> > [-8522787127447073495, 'barry', 'green'], >> > [-6480567542315338377, 'guido', 'blue']] >> >> As a side note, your suggestion also enables order-preserving >> dictionaries: iter() would automatically yield items in the order they >> were inserted, as long as there was no deletion. People will >> immediately start relying on this "feature"... and be confused by the >> behavior of deletion. :-/ > > If that's really an issue, we can deliberately scramble the iteration > order a bit :-) (of course it might negatively impact HW prefetching)
On the other hand, this would also make a fast ordered dictionary subclass possible, just by not using the free list for additions, combined with periodic compaction before adds or after deletes. _______________________________________________ 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
