On Jan 4, 2008 12:05 PM, Tim Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> history of insertions and deletions. If items(), keys(), values(),
> iteritems(), iterkeys(), and itervalues() are called with no intervening
> modifications to the dictionary, the lists will directly correspond.
I looked over the J
On Jan 5, 2008 6:58 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Guido> What code would break if we loosened this restriction?
>
> I don't know how much, but I do know I've relied on this behavior before.
> (In fact, I've asked about it before.) I guess the counter question to
> yours would be, "What w
Guido> What code would break if we loosened this restriction?
I don't know how much, but I do know I've relied on this behavior before.
(In fact, I've asked about it before.) I guess the counter question to
yours would be, "What would be gained by loosening this restriction"? If
the answer
On 1/4/08, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This post describes work aimed at getting Django to run on Jython:
> http://zyasoft.com/pythoneering/2008/01/django-on-jython-minding-gap.html
>
> One outstanding issue is whether to use Java's ConcurrentHashMap type
> to underly Jython's dict t
>> ConcurrentHashMap scales better in the face of threading
.. .
>> So, do Python implementations need to guarantee that list(dict_var) ==
>> a later result from list(dict_var)?
> What code would break if we loosened this restriction?
I can imagine someone has code like this:
for k in d:
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 02:54:49PM -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> What code would break if we loosened this restriction? I guess
> defining d.items() as zip(d.keys(), d.values()) would no longer fly,
> but does anyone actually depend on this? Just like we changed how we
http://www.google.com/cod
On Jan 4, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> What code would break if we loosened this restriction? I guess
> defining d.items() as zip(d.keys(), d.values()) would no longer fly,
> but does anyone actually depend on this?
I don't know what code would break today; this was initially added
On Jan 4, 2008 11:50 AM, A.M. Kuchling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This post describes work aimed at getting Django to run on Jython:
> http://zyasoft.com/pythoneering/2008/01/django-on-jython-minding-gap.html
>
> One outstanding issue is whether to use Java's ConcurrentHashMap type
> to underly J
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:05:55AM +1100, Tim Delaney wrote:
> >So, do Python implementations need to guarantee that list(dict_var) ==
> >a later result from list(dict_var)?
>
> As I just posted to the blog, yes. Look at section 3.8 of the reference
> manual
> (Mapping Types), specifically footno
On Jan 4, 2008, at 3:05 PM, Tim Delaney wrote:
> As I just posted to the blog, yes. Look at section 3.8 of the
> reference
> manual
> (Mapping Types), specifically footnote 3:
You type faster than I do. :-)
This guarantee has been in place for about a decade, as I recall.
-Fred
--
Fred
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> So, do Python implementations need to guarantee that list(dict_var) ==
> a later result from list(dict_var)?
As I just posted to the blog, yes. Look at section 3.8 of the reference
manual
(Mapping Types), specifically footnote 3:
http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmapping.ht
A.M. Kuchling wrote:
> So, do Python implementations need to guarantee that list(dict_var) ==
> a later result from list(dict_var)?
As I just posted to the blog, yes. Look at section 3.8 of the reference
manual
(Mapping Types), specifically footnote 3:
http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmapping.ht
12 matches
Mail list logo
