[Python-Dev] PEP 468 (Ordered kwargs)
Gregory P. Smith
greg at krypto.org
Wed Jan 28 08:14:12 CET 2015
On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 2:13:08 PM Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
> On 24 January 2015 at 11:50, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would like to point out that we implemented rhettingers idea in PyPy
> > that makes all the dicts ordered by default and we don't have any
> > adverse performance effects (in fact, there is quite significant
> > memory saving coming from it). The measurments on CPython could be
> > different, but in principle OrderedDict can be implemented as
> > efficiently as normal dict.
> I would like to add that http://bugs.python.org/issue16991 is the same
> as today's dicts with an additional doubly-linked list for the order.
> I'm unsure why you would do that after the 2012 thread started by
> Raymond Hettinger, but anyway, don't conclude from only this that in
> the CPython case ordered dictionaries would be slower and bigger. My
> guess is that, with a simple port of what is now in PyPy, they would
> not be (but of course no-one can be sure at this point). Let's say,
> if you could imagine that CPython's dictionaries, tomorrow, are always
> magically fully ordered, then would it still be a bad idea?
It is a potentially bad idea if order is the default behavior of iteration,
items(), keys() and values(). Ideally order should only be exposed when
explicitly asked for to help prevent bugs and mitigate potential
But I'm not sure how big of a deal this actually is. The insertion order
nicely doesn't give away anything related to the hash seed used for hash
randomization which is a nice bonus over today's implementation (and 2.7 &
3.3's very poor hash randomization implementation).
Experience cleaning up our huge code base at work to turn on hash
randomization by default a couple years ago has shown that people depend on
iteration order in code often without intending to. This often leads to
latent bugs. Keep iteration order unstable by default and you prevent
people from doing that. Make people request an ordered or stable iteration
when their code explicitly needs it.
If such a discussion would resurface (soon or "one day"), and if other
> related issues are resolved (like what to do in Jython and
> IronPython), and if the conclusion would tentatively turn out
> positive... then, provided there would at that point still be no
> "Raymond-style" implementation of dicts, I would volunteer to port
> PyPy's one to CPython. As you may have guessed I don't consider
> this particularly likely to occur, but it is a standing offer
> nevertheless :-)
CPython should benefit from it regardless for the memory savings alone.
> A bientôt,
>  Someone could also do such a port for the goal of getting an
> alternate `odictobject.c`. He would be welcome to #pypy to get some
> help from the PyPy guys, including me --- but my offer above doesn't
> apply in this case. I want to remove a thorn in the foot of
> python-dev discussing about the language; I'm not really interested in
> contributing to the `collections.OrderedDict` type.
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev