[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Also, the exact strategy I suggested could be implemented in various
> ways that might be efficient. Here are a few ways it might be made more
> efficient than the straw many of one extra dict lookup per call to
> keys() et. al.:
I'm not saying that an efficient imple
> Why do you think that this would be that certainly possible?
> I cannot imagine an efficient implementation.
>
>
> Ah, but can you imagine an inefficient one?
I think so (although one can never know until it's implemented).
> If so, we're no longer
> arguing about whether it's possib
On 1/13/07, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> It would certainly be possible to have:
>
>from __future__ import items_is_iter
>
> be the same as:
>
>__py3k_compat_items_is_iter__ = True
>
> and have the 2.x series' items() method check the globals
On 1/12/07, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the promise
of
> more future maintenance, not the lack of cruft.
The benefit (to me, and to many others) of 3.x over 2.x is the p
