[Python-3000] Two proposals for a new list-like type: one modest, one radical

Josiah Carlson jcarlson at uci.edu
Mon Apr 23 19:45:26 CEST 2007

"Daniel Stutzbach" <daniel at stutzbachenterprises.com> wrote:
> I have two proposals for Python 3000 that I'll write PEP(s) for if
> there's interest.  The first proposal is, I think, a modest one.  The
> second proposal is related, but more radical.  I fully expect the
> second proposal to be rejected for that alone, especially since I am a
> relatively an outsider to the Python developer community (though it
> was great to meet some of you at PyCon this year).  I bring up the
> more radical proposal primarily for completeness.
> I recognize that the Python developer community is understandably very
> attached to the current array-based list, so I expect this to get shot
> down.  I hope this doesn't reflect badly on the more modest proposal
> of including a new type in the collections module.  Also, please don't
> kill the messenger. :-)

I would be +1 on including the object in the collections module in 2.6
and 3.0 .  I've implemented variants of this particular structure using
binary treaps a few different times.

In terms of 3rd party extensions that rely on the interface of a list,
one could probably use the extended buffer protocol being discussed, but
it really isn't nearly as simple as just traversing the array of
PyObject* that a list exposes.  -1 on replacing lists (generally) with
your tree implementation.  Base types should be as simple as possible.

 - Josiah

More information about the Python-3000 mailing list