[Python-Dev] I think my set module is ready for prime time;
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:26:16 +0100
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Guido van Rossum <email@example.com>:
> > There's already a PEP on a set object type, and everybody and their
> > aunt has already implemented a set datatype.
> I've just read the PEP. Greg's proposal has a couple of problems.
> The biggest one is that the interface design isn't very Pythonic --
> it's formally adequate, but doesn't exploit the extent to which sets
> naturally have common semantics with existing Python sequence types.
> This is bad; it means that a lot of code that could otherwise ignore
> the difference between lists and sets would have to be specialized
> one way or the other for no good reason.
> The only other set module I can find in the Vaults or anywhere else is
> kjBuckets (which I knew about before). Looks like a good design, but
> complicated -- and requires installation of an extension.
There's also a kjSet.py available at Aaron's site:
which is a pure Python version of the C extenion's kjSet type.
> > If *your* set module is ready for prime time, why not publish it in
> > the Vaults of Parnassus?
> I suppose that's what I'll do if you don't bless it for the standard
> library. But here are the reasons I suggest you should do so:
> 1. It supports a set of operations that are both often useful and
> fiddly to get right, thus enhancing the "batteries are included"
> effect. (I used its ancestor for representing seen-message numbers in
> a specialized mailreader, for example.)
> 2. It's simple for application programmers to use. No extension module
> to integrate.
> 3. It's unsurprising. My set objects behave almost exactly like other
> mutable sequences, with all the same built-in methods working, except for
> the fact that you can't introduce duplicates with the mutators.
> 4. It's already completely documented in a form suitable for the library.
> 5. It's simple enough not to cause you maintainance hassles down the
> road, and even if it did the maintainer is unlikely to disappear :-).
All very well, but are sets really that essential to every
day Python programming ? If we include sets then we ought to
also include graphs, tries, btrees and all those other goodies
we have in computer science. All of these types are available
out there, but I believe the audience who really cares for these
types is also capable of downloading the extensions and installing
It would be nice if all of these extension could go into a SUMO
edition of Python though... together with your set module.
Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/