On 12/17/19 2:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Without being facetious[1] if you don't care about performance, you
don't need a set, you could use a list.
Lists don't enforce uniqueness. Apart from that a list would probably
work fine for my needs; in my admittedly-modest workloads I would
probably never notice a performance difference. My anecdote was merely
a jumping-off point for the discussion.
"I don't care about performance" is not because I'm aching for Python to
run my code slowly. It's because I'm 100% confident that the Python
community will lovingly optimize the implementation. So when I have my
language designer hat on, I really don't concern myself with
performance. As I thought I said earlier in the thread, I think we
should figure out the semantics we want /first,/ and /then/ we figure
out how to make it fast.
I'll also cop to "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds". I lack this strongly mathematical view of sets others have
espoused; instead I view them more like "dicts without values". I'm
therefore disgruntled by this inconsistency between what are I see as
closely related data structures, and it makes sense to me that they'd
maintain their insertion order the same way that dictionaries now do.
//arry/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/XECNAHYHWKA2NIVJNM6652SK26NLO4FT/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/