On 29/11/2022 00:51, Guido van Rossum wrote:
To stir up some more fire, I would personally be fine with sets having
the same ordering guarantees as dicts, *IF* it can be done without
performance degradations. So far nobody has come up with a way to ensure
that. "Sets weren't meant to be
at compile time.
Cheers,
Carl Friedrich Bolz
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
, or at least leaving it up to the implementation. Using non-string
keys in type dicts is relatively awkward and allowing them makes many
interesting optimizations (like method caches) a _lot_ harder to get right.
Cheers,
Carl Friedrich Bolz
___
Python
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 01:34 PM 6/12/2008 +0200, Carl Friedrich Bolz wrote:
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
As it happens, most objects' __dict__ slots are settable by default,
and
*require* that you set it to a dict or subclass thereof.
This is wrong for types:
Which is why I said most
that lookup
might fail.
Cheers,
Carl Friedrich Bolz
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
Terry Reedy wrote:
holger krekel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| We'd be very happy about feedback and opinions/questions
| (preferably until Monday, 19th March)
|
|
into the world of PyPy see
here:
http://codespeak.net/pypy/dist/pypy/doc/getting-started.html
Sorry for the fuss and cheers,
Carl Friedrich Bolz
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe
