[Python-ideas] Let's be more orderly!

[Daniel Holth]

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> On 05/14/2013 06:57 PM, Don Spaulding wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Barnert <abarnert at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:abarnert at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     On May 14, 2013, at 12:53, Jonathan Eunice <jonathan.eunice at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jonathan.eunice at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Using a compatible, separate implementation for |OrderedDict| is a
>>> fine way to gracefully extend the language, but
>>>     it leaves ordering only half-accomodated. Consider:
>>>
>>>     OrderedDict(a=2,  b=3,  c=7)
>>>
>>     If your proposal is to replace dict with OrderedDict, I think you need
>> at least one use case besides OrderedDict's
>>     constructor.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand the dismissal of OrderedDict.__init__ as an invalid use
>> case.
>
>
> It's not being dismissed, but it's only one.  There are thousands of
> functions using **kwds that simply don't care about the order.  Should they
> all pay the performance price so that some tiny fraction can benefit?
>
> While it is correctly said that if performance is a Big Deal you shouldn't
> be using Python, we also are not interested in making it slower without a
> really good reason.
>
> --
> ~Ethan~
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas

I'm not convinced that the performance argument is valid. There are
clever ways to optimize ordered dicts. It would be quite a change to
the language.