I think that using Python sets would be the best choice, but I also
need integers to be ordered inside the set and I've just found out
that, instead, Python sets are unordered collections.
Sets (both in Python, and their mathematical definition) are
unordered. However, some simple testing in my current python
seems to indicate that both their repr() and their __iter__()
seem to traverse in sorted order (though that may be a niceness
that Python performs in 2.3 and above). You can just order them
when you go to operate on them:
import random as r
# to test in <2.4
from sets import Set as set
s = set([r.randint(1,1000) for _ in range(1000)])
# for 2.4+
s = set(r.randint(1,1000) for _ in range(1000))
print s
for i in sorted(list(s)):
do_something(i)
Though for each test, in 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 that I've got
installed on my local machine, they each printed "s" in-order,
and the iteration occurred in-order as well, even without the
added "sorted(list(s))" code.
-tkc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
