[Python-Dev] Py2.6 buildouts to the set API
castironpi at comcast.net
Sat May 19 06:07:57 CEST 2007
> -----Original Message-----
> From: python-dev-bounces+castironpi=comcast.net at python.org [mailto:python-
> dev-bounces+castironpi=comcast.net at python.org] On Behalf Of Raymond
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:35 PM
> To: python-dev at python.org
> Subject: [Python-Dev] Py2.6 buildouts to the set API
> 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
It sounds -really- good.
> * 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).
This pleads for elsewhere adding operation in chains. Sort on multiple keys
is addressed by itemgetter (IMO also should be built-in). But dict.update,
a list append, a deque pop could use these. When-do-you-ever is out of
stock and ships in a week.
> * 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
This one calls for subclassing, a la observer pattern.
In that vein, some subclassing operation could use a list of
pattern-matching / semantic membership. E.g.
def every_add_op( self, op, ***data ):
call_a_hook( ***data )
op( ***data )
Rings of ML. Support could be provided with
for x in ( add, update, intersection_update ):
def my_x( self, ***data ):
call_a_hook( ***data )
x( ***data )
setattr( self, x, my_x )
But you need to know which operations are destructive/constructive, but we
can't go back and annotate the whole stdlib. Though I agree that some level
of programmatic interference could be useful.
Academic concern which shoots 50-50 in the real world. I may be tempered
with too much beauty (Beautiful is better than ugly.), not enough market.
You're all in it for money.
More information about the Python-Dev