On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:37 AM Stestagg <stestagg@gmail.com> wrote:
1. ordered collections that have some set-like operators added for convenience, (conceptually, if not exactly, class ...(Set, Sequence):) but are missing a single method full Sequence interface (__getitem__) or 2. Sets that happen to have a stable/deterministic element order
My opinion is that, as of Python 3.7, they are effectively 1, even if the isinstance hooks haven't been updated. I can see why people may think of them as 2. I don't have any desire to change minds on this :)
Semantic quibbling aside, My opinions/reasoning on the different options are the following:
as long as we are semantic quibbling (1) is not quite right -- they don't "have some set-like operators, they have the full set of them, and they they ARE Sets: In [44]: d = {"this": 4, "that": 23} In [45]: isinstance(d.keys(), Set) Out[45]: True But see another recent thread on this list - they don't have all the same methods as the builtin set() type. But the ABC doesn't specify those, so they don't need to. However, that doesn't mean that it's somehow critical for them not to grow some extra functionality -- they would still be Sets. * Add numeric `__getitem__` to `dict_*` view classes:
+1 - This restores code that used to work in python 2, and makese some things a bit easier. The O(n) behaviour is not ideal, but in my opinion is an acceptable compromise
well, not really -- it only lets some things work like they did in Py2: most code I've ported from py2 to py3 that I needed to wrap list() around the views needed more than indexing -- I usually needed the list itself to be a persistent, mutable Sequence, not a view. I'm +1 on on this, ;cause why not? but honestly , the only good use case I've seen is random.choice() -- and while I've needed that, I can't say I've needed it often.
* Add new method to dict class: -1 This doesn't feel like a good solution to me. Rather than continue to argue about the justification for why, let's just say its a personal judgement
wqe neither, gut it's not just a personal taste -- a getter wouldn't work with random.choice, the only known use case :-) -- unless the new method returned a Sequence-like view that could be indexed. Granted, it would allow an easier way to get a random item, but not as slick as: random.choice(a_dict.items()) I think it was Oscar that pointed out that repeated indexing of a view would be worse performance wise than making a proper list -- so that *might* be considered an attractive nuisance. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, PhD Python Language Consulting - Teaching - Scientific Software Development - Desktop GUI and Web Development - wxPython, numpy, scipy, Cython