kj wrote:
Does anyone know where I can buy the Python library reference in
printed form? (I'd rather not print the whole 1200+-page tome
myself.) I'm interested in both/either 2.6 and 3.0.
TIA!
kj
Why not download the documentation, take it to a local copy shop and
have it printed and
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message mailman.2140.1245996088.8015.python-l...@python.org, João
Valverde wrote:
Simple example usage case: Insert string into data structure in sorted
order if it doesn't exist, else retrieve it.
the_set = set( ... )
if str in the_set
João Valverde wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
João Valverde backu...@netcabo.pt writes:
Interesting, thanks. The concept is not difficult to understand but
I'm not sure it would be preferable. A copy operation should have the
same cost as a snapshot,
You mean a deep-copy
alex23 wrote:
João Valverde backu...@netcabo.pt wrote:
Currently I don't have a strong need for this.
And clearly neither has anyone else, hence the absence from the
stdlib. As others have pointed out, there are alternative approaches,
and plenty of recipes on ActiveState, which seem
Paul Rubin wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
(In particular, WRT the bisect module, although insertion and deletion
are O(N), the constant factor for doing a simple memory move at C speed
swamps bytecode until N gets very large -- and we already have
collections.deque() for some
Paul Rubin wrote:
João Valverde backu...@netcabo.pt writes:
Could you clarify what you mean by immutable? As in... not mutable? As
in without supporting insertions and deletions?
Correct.
That's has the same performance as using binary search on a sorted
list. What's
João Valverde wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
João Valverde backu...@netcabo.pt writes:
Could you clarify what you mean by immutable? As in... not mutable? As
in without supporting insertions and deletions?
Correct.
That's has the same performance as using binary search on a sorted
list
João Valverde wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article mailman.2170.1246042676.8015.python-l...@python.org,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Valverde?= backu...@netcabo.pt wrote:
Anyway, I'm *not* trying to discourage you, just explain some of the
roadblocks to acceptance that likely are why it hasn't already
Miles Kaufmann wrote:
João Valverde wrote:
To answer the question of what I need the BSTs for, without getting
into too many boring details it is to merge and sort IP blocklists,
that is, large datasets of ranges in the form of (IP address, IP
address, string). Originally I was also
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
João Valverde wrote:
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
João Valverde wrote:
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
João Valverde wrote:
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
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
Stefan Behnel wrote:
João Valverde wrote:
Besides some interface glitches, like returning None
on delete if I recall correctly.
That's actually not /that/ uncommon. Operations that change an object are
not (side-effect free) functions, so it's just purity if they do not have a
return
João Valverde wrote:
Stefan Behnel wrote:
João Valverde wrote:
Besides some interface glitches, like returning None
on delete if I recall correctly.
That's actually not /that/ uncommon. Operations that change an object
are
not (side-effect free) functions, so it's just purity
João Valverde wrote:
João Valverde wrote:
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
Aahz wrote:
In article 006078f0$0$9721$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
Hash tables (dicts) are useful for many of the same things that trees are
useful for, but they are different data structures with different
strengths and
greg wrote:
João Valverde wrote:
What's lacking is an associative array that preserves ordering,
doesn't require a hash function and has fast insertions and deletions
in O(log(n)).
Careful here -- you can't get away from the need for
hashability just by using a tree. Even if you don't
need
João Valverde wrote:
greg wrote:
João Valverde wrote:
What's lacking is an associative array that preserves ordering,
doesn't require a hash function and has fast insertions and
deletions in O(log(n)).
Careful here -- you can't get away from the need for
hashability just by using a tree
Aahz wrote:
In article mailman.2170.1246042676.8015.python-l...@python.org,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Valverde?= backu...@netcabo.pt wrote:
What's lacking is an associative array that preserves ordering, doesn't
require a hash function and has fast insertions and deletions in
O(log(n)). The
21 matches
Mail list logo
