On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:42PM +0100, Stestagg wrote: > Irrespective of where in the api this logic should exist, the > implementation won't be algorithmically different, (I think, even with a > `.ordered` view, as the view would have to cope with changes to the > underlying dictionary over its lifetime, and external tracking of changes > to dicts is not, afaik, feasible. Unlike for-loop constructs which are > inherently scoped, I feel like you wouldn't get away with forbidding > modifying a dict() if there's a view on keys/values/items still alive, as > these things are first-class objects that can be stored/passed around)
Forbidding mutation of the dict while a view exists is missing the point of having a view in the first place: updating the owning object should update the view as well. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/B4TVRQVWEKMA7F2LSPJEOMNMR5XFVTTV/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
