<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Kent Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kent37@tds.net">kent37@tds.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Jervis Whitley <<a href="mailto:jervisau@gmail.com">jervisau@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> how about this:<br>
> items = [(1,'a'),(1,'b'),(2,'a'),(3,'a'),<br>
> (3,'b'),(4,'a'),(5,'a'),(5,'b'),(5,'c')]<br>
> mydict = dict(items)<br>
> items = [item for item in mydict.iteritems()]<br>
<br>
</div>That only coincidentally preserves order; the order of items in a<br>
dictionary is, for practical purposes, unpredictable.<br>
<br>
BTW [item for item in mydict.iteritems()] can be written as just mydict.items().<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Kent</font></blockquote><div>I realise that what you have said is true, however </div></div>can you show me a case where <div><br></div><div>> items = dict(items).items()<br></div><div><br></div><div>will not preserve order? Thanks.</div>