Hello Bengt,
Bengt Richter wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005 03:38:37 -0800, "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fuzzyman wrote:
> >> Sorry for this hurried message - I've done a new implementation of out
> >> ordered dict. This comes out of the discussion on this newsgroup (see
> >> blog entry fo
On 1 Dec 2005 03:38:37 -0800, "Fuzzyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Fuzzyman wrote:
>> Sorry for this hurried message - I've done a new implementation of out
>> ordered dict. This comes out of the discussion on this newsgroup (see
>> blog entry for link to archive of discussion).
>>
>> See the
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Sorry for this hurried message - I've done a new implementation of out
> ordered dict. This comes out of the discussion on this newsgroup (see
> blog entry for link to archive of discussion).
>
> See the latest blog entry to get at it :
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/weblog
Fuzzyman wrote:
>>- One problem with the FancyDict is that it allows
>> d.keys.append(100)
>
>
> Are you sure ?
Not at all. This was from inspection only; I propably
misinterpreted the code.
Regards,
Martin
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
> Fuzzyman wrote:
> > Sorry for this hurried message - I've done a new implementation of out
> > ordered dict. This comes out of the discussion on this newsgroup (see
> > blog entry for link to archive of discussion).
>
> Thanks. I'll try to check it out and put my oar i
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Fuzzyman wrote:
> > Criticism solicited (honestly) :-)
>
> A couple of minor points:
> - I would drop 2.2 compatibility
There are a lot of cheap hosting accounts where Python 2.2 is all that
is available. I would only drop support if there is some *compelling*
reason to d
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Sorry for this hurried message - I've done a new implementation of out
> ordered dict. This comes out of the discussion on this newsgroup (see
> blog entry for link to archive of discussion).
Thanks. I'll try to check it out and put my oar in over the next
weekend. One thing I a
"Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> A couple of minor points:
> - I would drop 2.2 compatibility
Unfortunately, there are a *lot* of systems out there where only 2.2 is support
(Red Hat 3.0 anyone?).
I know we'd like to be able to not support earlier versions (yes, I saw today's
messages on the djgpp p
Fuzzyman wrote:
> Criticism solicited (honestly) :-)
A couple of minor points:
- I would drop 2.2 compatibility
- self=self isn't needed in the functions, because of
nested scopes
- popitem(self) can be rewritten as
def popitem(self):
try:
key = self._sequence.pop()
