No trees in the stdlib?

[João Valverde]

alex23 wrote:
> João Valverde <backu... at netcabo.pt> wrote:
>   
>> Currently I don't have a strong need for this.
>>     
>
> And clearly neither has anyone else, hence the absence from the
> stdlib. As others have pointed out, there are alternative approaches,
> and plenty of recipes on ActiveState, which seem to have scratched
> whatever itch there is for the data structure you're advocating.
>   

Propose such alternative then. There are none that offer the same 
performance. At best they're workarounds.

I don't care about recipes. That's called research.

If people don't find it to be useful, that's fine. Surprising, but fine.

And I don't have a need because I'm not using Python for my project. If 
I wanted to I couldn't, without implementing myself or porting to Python 
3 a basic computer science data structure.

> While Python's motto is "batteries included" I've always felt there
> was an implicit "but not the kitchen sink" following it. Just because
> something "could" be useful shouldn't be grounds for inclusion. That's
> what pypi & the recipes are for. Ideally, little should be created
> wholesale for the stdlib, what should be added are the existing 3rd
> party modules that have become so ubiquitous that their presence on
> any python platform is just expected.
>   

Agreed.