Hi!
> Option 4) Just make the change directly in 3.8, s/OrderedDict/dict/, and
> be done will it. This gives users the benefits right away and doesn't
> annoy them with warnings that they likely don't care about. There is some
> precedent for this. To make namedtuple class creation faster, t
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 05:26 Nick Coghlan On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:40, Glenn Linderman
> wrote:
> >> On 1/30/2019 8:45 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >>> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Glenn Linderman
> wrote:
> >>> Would it be practical to add deprecated methods to regular dict for
> the OrderedD
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 16:40, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>> On 1/30/2019 8:45 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>> On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>>> Would it be practical to add deprecated methods to regular dict for the
>>> OrderedDict reordering methods that raise with an error s
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:32:38 -0800
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> My recommendation is Option 4 as being less disruptive and more beneficial
> than the other options.
Option 4 here as well. Sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good.
Regards
Antoine.
__
On 1/30/2019 8:45 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Would it be practical to add deprecated methods to regular dict for the OrderedDict
reordering methods that raise with an error suggesting "To use this method, convert
dict to OrderedDict." (or s
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
>
> Alternatively, would it be viable to make OrderedDict work in a way that so
> long as you don't use any reordering operations it's essentially just a very
> thin layer on top of a dict,
There's all kinds of tricks we could do but none of
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 15:46, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> > Would it be practical to add deprecated methods to regular dict for the
> OrderedDict reordering methods that raise with an error suggesting "To use
> this method, convert dict to OrderedDict." (or some better wording).
>
> That's an in
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 6:00 PM, David Mertz wrote:
>
> Ditto +1 option 4
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 5:56 PM Paul Moore On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 22:35, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
> > My recommendation is Option 4 as being less disruptive and more beneficial
> > than the other options. In the un
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:34 PM Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> Now that regular dicts are ordered and compact, it makes more sense for the
> _asdict() method to create a regular dict (as it did in its early days)
> rather than an OrderedDict. The regular dict is much smaller, much faster,
> and ha
Ditto +1 option 4
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019, 5:56 PM Paul Moore On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 22:35, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
> > My recommendation is Option 4 as being less disruptive and more
> beneficial than the other options. In the unlikely event that anyone is
> currently depending on the reorderi
On Jan 30, 2019, at 14:32, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
>
> Now that regular dicts are ordered and compact, it makes more sense for the
> _asdict() method to create a regular dict (as it did in its early days)
> rather than an OrderedDict. The regular dict is much smaller, much faster,
> and has
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:32 PM Raymond Hettinger <
raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that regular dicts are ordered and compact, it makes more sense for
> the _asdict() method to create a regular dict (as it did in its early days)
> rather than an OrderedDict. The regular dict is much sm
On 1/30/2019 2:32 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Now that regular dicts are ordered and compact, it makes more sense for the
_asdict() method to create a regular dict (as it did in its early days) rather
than an OrderedDict.
...
Option 4) Just make the change directly in 3.8, s/OrderedDict/dic
On 01/30/2019 02:55 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 22:35, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
My recommendation is Option 4 as being less disruptive and more beneficial than
the other options. In the unlikely event that anyone is currently depending on
the reordering methods for the outpu
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 22:35, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> My recommendation is Option 4 as being less disruptive and more beneficial
> than the other options. In the unlikely event that anyone is currently
> depending on the reordering methods for the output of _asdict(), the
> remediation is t
Now that regular dicts are ordered and compact, it makes more sense for the
_asdict() method to create a regular dict (as it did in its early days) rather
than an OrderedDict. The regular dict is much smaller, much faster, and has a
much cleaner looking repr. It would also help namedtuple() st
16 matches
Mail list logo
