Christoph Zwerschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > * C++ has a Map template in the STL which is ordered (a "Sorted > Associative Container").
Ordered *by comparisons on keys*, NOT by order of insertion -- an utterly and completely different idea. > So ordered dictionaries don't seem to be such an exotic idea. Ordered *by order of key insertion*: Java, PHP Ordered *by other criteria*: LISP, C++ Unordered: Python, Perl, Ruby, Smalltalk, Awk, Tcl by classification of the languages you've listed. > I can't help but I still find it unambiguous and intuitive enough to > consider it "the one" standard implementation for ordered dictionaries. Then you should be very careful not to call C++'s implementation "ordered", because that makes it VERY HARD to argue that "the one" thingy;-). Nevertheless, since sorting by keys (or any function of the keys and values, including one depending on an external table, which was claimed to be otherwise in other parts of this thread) is so trivial, while recovering insertion order is impossible without some auxiliary data structure ``on the side'', I agree that a dictionary subclass that's ordered based on insertion timing would have more added value than one where the 'ordering' is based on any function of keys and values. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
