On 06/09/2013 10:13 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Guido van Rossum mailto:gu...@python.org>> wrote:
I'm slow at warming up to the idea. My main concern is speed -- since
most code doesn't need it and function calls are already slow (and
obviously
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm slow at warming up to the idea. My main concern is speed -- since
> most code doesn't need it and function calls are already slow (and
> obviously very common :-) it would be a shame if this slowed down
> function calls that don't nee
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Greg Ewing
wrote:
> Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>>
>> Actually, when I was thinking on the subject I came to the same idea, of
>> having
>> some functions marked differently so they would use a different call
>> mechanism -
>> but them I wondered around having a diffe
I think that kills the "let's make all dicts ordered" idea, even for
CPython. I wouldn't want people to start relying on this. The dict type
should be clearly recognizable as the hash table it is.
Making **kwds ordered is still open, but requires careful design and
implementation to avoid slowing
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Or in other words, if dicts are to be ordered, let's make it an explicit
> language feature that we can measure compliance against.
Guaranteeing a dict order would be tough on Jython - today it's nice
that we can just have a thin wrapper aroun
On May 20, 2013, at 02:30 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
>Just checking: in view of Raymond's proposal, is there a good reason
>against having all dicts be systematically ordered? It would
>definitely improve the debugging experience, by making multiple runs
>of the same program more like each other, ins
Hi all,
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote:
> Note that raymonds proposal would make dicts and ordereddicts almost
> exactly the same speed.
Just checking: in view of Raymond's proposal, is there a good reason
against having all dicts be systematically ordered? It would
Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
Actually, when I was thinking on the subject I came to the same idea, of having
some functions marked differently so they would use a different call mechanism -
but them I wondered around having a different opcode for the ordered-dict calls.
Would that be feasible?
No,
On 20 May 2013 00:57, "Guido van Rossum" wrote:
>
> Hm. Wouldn'tvevery call site be slowed down by checking for that flag?
Yeah, I forgot about having to push everything through the tp_call slot, so
we can't easily limit the ordering check to just those cases where the
callable accepts arbitrary
On 19 May 2013 11:57, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Hm. Wouldn'tvevery call site be slowed down by checking for that flag?
Actually, when I was thinking on the subject I came to the same idea, of having
some functions marked differently so they would use a different call mechanism -
but them I wonder
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> The main use case seems to be the OrderedDict constructor itself.
>> Otherwise, I can't think of any situation where I would've wanted it.
>
> I've had a couple related to populating
Hm. Wouldn'tvevery call site be slowed down by checking for that flag?
—
Sent from Mailbox
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
>> The main use case seems to be the OrderedDict constructor itself.
>> Otherwise, I can't th
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> The main use case seems to be the OrderedDict constructor itself.
> Otherwise, I can't think of any situation where I would've wanted it.
I've had a couple related to populating other mappings where order
matters, at least from a predictab
On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:47:35 -0700
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
> > BTW, I'm +1 on the idea for ordering keyword-args. It makes
> > it easier to debug if the arguments show-up in the order they
> > were created. AFAICT, no purpose is ser
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger
> wrote:
>> BTW, I'm +1 on the idea for ordering keyword-args. It makes
>> it easier to debug if the arguments show-up in the order they
>> were created. AFAICT, no purpose is served by scrambling them
>> (which is exacerbated by the new rand
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Raymond Hettinger
wrote:
> BTW, I'm +1 on the idea for ordering keyword-args. It makes
> it easier to debug if the arguments show-up in the order they
> were created. AFAICT, no purpose is served by scrambling them
> (which is exacerbated by the new randomized h
16 matches
Mail list logo
