Jason Scheirer wrote:
On Jun 25, 10:32 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
In article <mailman.2139.1245994218.8015.python-l...@python.org>,
Tom Reed <tomree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why no trees in the standard library, if not as a built in? I searched
the archive but couldn't find a relevant discussion. Seems like a
glaring omission considering the batteries included philosophy,
particularly balanced binary search trees. No interest, no good
implementations, something other reason? Seems like a good fit for the
collections module. Can anyone shed some light?
What do you want such a tree for? Why are dicts and the bisect module
inadequate? Note that there are plenty of different tree implementations
available from either PyPI or the Cookbook.
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"as long as we like the same operating system, things are cool." --piranha
...And heapq is more-or-less an emulation of a tree structure in its
underlying model. I once wrote a binary sorted tree data structure for
Python in C. It performed anywhere from 15-40% worse than dicts. I
think with optimization it will only perform 10% worse than dicts at
best.
Oh hey maybe that is why trees aren't an emphasized part of the
standard. They are going to be much slower than the ultra-optimized
dicts already in the standard lib.
But a dict can't be used to implement a (sorted) table ADT.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
