Le Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:16:49 -0500, PJ Eby <p...@telecommunity.com> a écrit :
> 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. I suspect that's what Raymond has in mind :-) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
