On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 09:00:31PM -0800, Larry Hastings wrote:
I think we should decide the question "should set objects maintain insertion order?" literally without any consideration about performance implications.
In your opening post:
I also want FAST lookup because I soemtimes remove jobs when they're subsequently marked "not ready". [emphasis added]
So do you care about performance or not? :-) If you do care (a bit) about performance, what slowdown would you be willing to take to get ordered sets? That would give us a good idea of the potential trade-offs that might be acceptable. Without being facetious[1] if you don't care about performance, you don't need a set, you could use a list. There's a serious point here: there's nothing sets can do that couldn't be implemented using lists. The reason we have sets, rather than a bunch of extra methods like intersection and symmetric_difference on lists, is because we considered performance. [1] Well... maybe a tiny bit... *wink* -- Steven