On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 23:35:03 -0500, Tim Henderson wrote: > Hi > > The question why are there no sorted dictionaries in python, seems to > pop up with unseeming regularity. That question in itself in > nonsensical sense dictionaries are hash-maps, however should python > have a sorted map type object is a good question. > > clearly many people like have a sorted map, and sorting the keys every > time seems rather wasteful, as does keeping a separate sorted list of > the keys.
Another good question is, does it *seem* wasteful or is it *actually* wasteful? More or less wasteful than having special code in Python to implement "sorted dictionaries" (whatever that means)? It is good to have a rich, powerful set of tools in a programming language. It is bad to expect that, no matter what task you need, that your language should have a single function or object to do it. That just leads to a bloated language where it is harder to find the feature you want than it is to simply write it yourself. > a related question is, in python is it more efficient to a maintain a > list type in sorted order by inserting each new object in the correct > location (by say finding it with a binary search and then using del > list[x]) or appending each new item to the end of said list and using > the built-in .sort method, or sorted() function? I don't think using del to insert an object into a list would be very efficient, no matter how little time the deletion took :-) Why don't you try it for yourself? You only need some quick and dirty code to discover which approach is better (for a quick and dirty definition of "better"). Don't forget to check out the bisect module too. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
