João Valverde wrote:
Aahz wrote:
In article <mailman.2139.1245994218.8015.python-l...@python.org>,
Tom Reed <tomree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why no trees in the standard library, if not as a built in? I
searched the archive but couldn't find a relevant discussion. Seems
like a glaring omission considering the batteries included
philosophy, particularly balanced binary search trees. No interest,
no good implementations, something other reason? Seems like a good
fit for the collections module. Can anyone shed some light?
What do you want such a tree for? Why are dicts and the bisect module
inadequate? Note that there are plenty of different tree
implementations
available from either PyPI or the Cookbook.
A hash table is very different to a BST. They are both useful. The
bisect module I'm not familiar with, I'll have to look into that, thanks.
I have found pyavl on the web, it does the job ok, but there no
implementations for python3 that I know of.
The main problem with pyavl by the way is that it doesn't seem to be
subclassable (?). Besides some interface glitches, like returning None
on delete if I recall correctly.
There's also rbtree, which I didn't try. And I think that's it. On the
whole not a lot of choice and not as practical for such a common data
structure.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
