I think that Paul has a point. Interestingly, at the same time we're talking about guaranteeing the order of dicts, we're talking about using another, unordered, data structure (hash array mapped tries) to improve the performance of something that resembles a namespace. It seems the "unordered" part will be visible through ExecutionContext.vars().
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0550/#enumerating-context-vars The ordered-ness of dicts could instead become one of those stable CPython implementation details, such as the fact that resources are cleaned up timely by reference counting, that people nevertheless should not rely on if they're writing portable code. Regards Antoine. On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 12:18:17 +0200 Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> wrote: > [] > > > I don't think that situation should change the decision, > > Indeed, it shouldn't. What may change it is the simple and obvious fact > that there's no need to change anything, as proven by the 25-year > history of the language. > > What happens now borders on technologic surrealism - the CPython, after > many years of persuasion, switched its dict algorithm, rather > inefficient in terms of memory, to something else, less inefficient > (still quite inefficient, taking "no overhead" as the baseline). That > algorithm randomly had another property. Now there's a seemingly > serious talk of letting that property leak into the *language spec*, > despite the fact that there can be unlimited number of dictionary > algorithms, most of them not having that property. _______________________________________________ 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
