[Python-Dev] Py2.6 buildouts to the set API
mike.klaas at gmail.com
Sat May 19 03:50:24 CEST 2007
On 18-May-07, at 6:34 PM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> Here some ideas that have been proposed for sets:
> * New method (proposed by Shane Holloway): s1.isdisjoint(s2).
> Logically equivalent to "not s1.intersection(s2)" but has an early-
> out if a common member is found. The speed-up is potentially large
> given two big sets that may largely overlap or may not intersect at
> all. There is also a memory savings since a new set does not have
> to be formed and then thrown away.
+1. Disjointness verification is one of my main uses for set(), and
though I don't think that the early-out condition would trigger often
in my code, it would increase readability.
> * Additional optional arguments for basic set operations to allow
> chained operations. For example, s=s1.union(s2, s3, s4) would be
> logically equivalent to s=s1.union(s2).union(s3).union(s4) but
> would run faster because no intermediate sets are created, copied,
> and discarded. It would run as if written: s=s1.copy(); s.update
> (s2); s.update(s3); s.update(s4).
It's too bad that this couldn't work with the binary operator spelling:
s = s1 | s2 | s3 | s4
> * Make sets listenable for changes (proposed by Jason Wells):
> s = set(mydata)
> def callback(s):
> print 'Set %d now has %d items' % (id(s), len(s))
> s.add(existing_element) # no callback
> s.add(new_element) # callback
-1 on the base set type: it seems too complex for a base set type.
Also, there are various possible semantics that might be desirable,
such as receiving the added element, or returning False to prevent
The proper place is perhaps a subclass of set with a magic method
(analogous to defaultdict/__missing__).
More information about the Python-Dev