Armin Ronacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This PEP proposes an ordered dictionary as a new data structure for > the ``collections`` module, called "odict" in this PEP for short.
A welcome addition. Since we're not proposing a built-in type, could we choose a name that is more explicit, and consistent with the types in 'collections' already. I'd prefer one of the following: collections.ordereddict collections.ordered_dict Other (minor) comments: > The key is not moved but assigned a new value in place. This is > consistent with existing implementations and allows subclasses to > change the behavior easily:: > > class movingcollections.odict): Something is missing in the above line of code. It's invalid as-is, but I don't know which of the many possible replacements is intended. > Why is there no ``odict.insert()``? Thank you for this design decision; I agree entirely that the correct solution is to resequence and create a new ordered dict from the result. > A poorly performing example implementation of the odict written in > Python is available: > > `odict.py <http://dev.pocoo.org/hg/sandbox/raw-file/tip/ > odict.py>`_ This seems to be a victim of errant line-breaking, resulting in the wrong URL. -- \ “The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. | `\ It's absolutely not.” —Bill Gates, 1995-10-23 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
