Nick Coghlan added the comment:
My rationale for asking "What if we just changed heapq back to working closer
to the way it used to work?" is that it's a case where arbitrarily ordering
unorderable tuples made sense, and reverting it to the old behaviour is
reasonably safe:
- some Py3 heapq code that previously raised TypeError would start using an
arbitrary ordering instead
- Py2 heapq code would get a *different* arbitrary ordering in Py3, but it
would still get an arbitrary ordering
I don't feel especially strongly about that though, so if you prefer the
approach of defining a new more explicit idiom to replace the old "make a
tuple" one, I think a new wrapper type is a reasonable way to go, but using
"Prioritize" as a name is probably too specific to the PriorityQueue use case.
As a more generic name, "KeyedItem" might work:
```
@functools.total_ordering
class KeyedItem:
def __init__(self, key, item):
self.key = key
self.item = item
def __eq__(self, other):
return self.key == other.key
def __lt__(self, other):
return self.key < other.key
```
So applying an arbitrary key function would look like:
decorated = [KeyedItem(key(v), v) for v in values]
And if it was a tuple subclass, it would also work with APIs like the dict
constructor.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue31145>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
