On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 1:38 AM, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like that, how about removing OrderedDict Pure Python implementation > from stdlib and require it to implementation?
-1 Like Antoine, I consider the pure Python implementation to be valuable. Furthermore, the pure Python implementation is the reference, so its behavior is idiomatic. > ### Thread safety > > AFAIK, there are no thread safety guarantee in OrderedDict. > I don't look carefully, but some methods seems thread unsafe. What isn't thread-safe? I know that Raymond has a good understanding of this area. For instance, he was very clear about re-entrancy concerns when I was working on the C implementation. I recommend getting feedback from him on this. FWIW, I don't recall any bugs related to thread-safety in OrderedDict, even though it's been around a while. > [snip] > > ### Less maintenance cost of test_ordered_dict. > > [snip] I don't find this to be a strong argument. If there are concerns with the reference behavior then those should be addressed rather than used to justify removing the implementation. > ### `import collections` bit faster. > > [snip] This is not a strong argument. The difference is not significant enough to warrant removing the reference implementation. So, again, I'm against removing the pure Python implementation of OrderedDict. I highly recommend making sure you have Raymond's cooperation before making changes in the collections module. -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
