On 14 October 2016 at 06:48, Neil Girdhar <mistersh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Related: > > Nick posted an excellent answer to this question here: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5953205/why-are-there-no-sorted-containers-in-pythons-standard-libraries
Ah, so this thread is why I've been getting SO notifications for that answer :) While I think that was a decent answer for its time (as standardising things too early can inhibit community experimentation - there was almost 12 years between Twisted's first release in 2002 and asyncio's provisional inclusion in the standard library in Python 3.4), I also think the broader context has changed enough that the question may be worth revisiting for Python 3.7 (in particular, the prospect that it may be possible to provide this efficiently without having to add a large new chunk of C code to maintain). However, given that Grant has already been discussing the possibility directly with Raymond as the collections module maintainer though, there's probably not a lot we can add to that discussion here, since the key trade-off is between: - helping folks that actually need a sorted container implementation find one that works well with typical memory architectures in modern CPUs - avoiding confusing folks that *don't* need a sorted container with yet another group of possible data structures to consider in the standard library *That* part of my original SO answer hasn't changed, it's just not as clearcut a decision from a maintainability perspective when we're talking about efficient and relatively easy to explain pure Python implementations. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/