Magnus Lycka schrieb:
>> I still believe that the concept of an "ordered dictionary" ("behave
>> like dict, only keep the order of the keys") is intuitive and doesn't
>> give you so much scope for ambiguity.
> Sure. Others think so too. The problem is that if you and these other
> people actually write down exactly how this unambigous ordered dict
> should behave, you'll end up with a dozen different sets of semantics,
> which can be divided in at least three main groups.
That's the point where I dare to disagree. As I have pointed out in
another posting in this thread, all other implementations have the same
semantics for the basic behavior. I cannot see three different groups.
Again, what's so surprising as the "natural" semantics described here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-March/052041.html
-- Christoph
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
