iSharkFly-Open
/
python-peps
mirror of https://github.com/python/peps.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Clarified lots of issues, added more open issues.

This commit is contained in:
Guido van Rossum 2006-12-23 05:22:30 +00:00
parent 6006113241
commit 9cf994cde3
1 changed files with 152 additions and 51 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

201
pep-3106.txt
View File

@ -15,9 +15,10 @@ Abstract
This PEP proposes to change the .keys(), .values() and .items()
methods of the built-in dict type to return a set-like or
multiset-like object whose contents are derived of the underlying
dictionary rather than a list which is a copy of the keys, etc.; and
to remove the .iterkeys(), .itervalues() and .iteritems() methods.
multiset-like (== bag-like) object whose contents are derived of the
underlying dictionary rather than a list which is a copy of the keys,
etc.; and to remove the .iterkeys(), .itervalues() and .iteritems()
methods.
The approach is inspired by that taken in the Java Collections
Framework [1]_.
@ -31,40 +32,43 @@ lightweight object than a list, and to get rid of .iterkeys(),
.itervalues() and .iteritems(). The idea is that code that currently
(in 2.x) reads::
for x in d.iterkeys(): ...
for k, v in d.iteritems(): ...
should be rewritten as::
for x in d.keys(): ...
for k, v in d.items(): ...
and code that currently reads::
(and similar for .itervalues() and .iterkeys(), except the latter is
redundant since we can write that loop as ``for k in d``.)
Code that currently reads::
a = d.keys() # assume we really want a list here
should be rewritten as
(etc.) should be rewritten as
a = list(d.keys())
There are (at least) two ways to accomplish this. The original plan
was to simply let .keys(), .values() and .items() return an iterator,
i.e. exactly what iterkeys(), itervalues() and iteritems() return
in Python 2.x. However, the Java Collections Framework [1]_ suggests
i.e. exactly what iterkeys(), itervalues() and iteritems() return in
Python 2.x. However, the Java Collections Framework [1]_ suggests
that a better solution is possible: the methods return objects with
set behavior (for .keys() and .items()) or multiset behavior (for
.values()) that do not contain copies of the keys, values or items,
but rather reference the underlying dict and pull their values out of
the dict as needed.
set behavior (for .keys() and .items()) or multiset (== bag) behavior
(for .values()) that do not contain copies of the keys, values or
items, but rather reference the underlying dict and pull their values
out of the dict as needed.
The advantage of this approach is that one can still write code like
this::
a = d.keys()
for x in a: ...
for x in a: ...
a = d.items()
for k, v in a: ...
for k, v in a: ...
Effectively, iter(d.keys()) in Python 3.0 does what d.iterkeys() does
in Python 2.x; but in most contexts we don't have to write the iter()
call because it is implied by a for-loop.
Effectively, iter(d.keys()) (etc.) in Python 3.0 will do what
d.iterkeys() (etc.) does in Python 2.x; but in most contexts we don't
have to write the iter() call because it is implied by a for-loop.
The objects returned by the .keys() and .items() methods behave like
sets with limited mutability; they allow removing elements, but not
@ -83,9 +87,9 @@ dicts have the same keys by simply testing::
if a.keys() == b.keys(): ...
and similarly for values. (Two multisets are deemed equal if they
have the same elements with the same cardinalities,
e.g. the multiset {1, 2, 2} is equal to the multiset {2, 1, 2} but
differs from the multiset {1, 2}.)
have the same elements with the same cardinalities, e.g. the multiset
{1, 2, 2} is equal to the multiset {2, 1, 2} but differs from the
multiset {1, 2}.)
These operations are thread-safe only to the extent that using them in
a thread-unsafe way may cause an exception but will not cause
@ -108,11 +112,13 @@ simultaneously by another thread).
Specification
=============
I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
I'm using pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
class dict:
# Omitting all other dict methods for brevity
# Omitting all other dict methods for brevity.
# The .iterkeys(), .itervalues() and .iteritems() methods
# will be removed.
def keys(self):
return d_keys(self)
@ -151,9 +157,6 @@ I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
def clear(self):
self.__d.clear()
def copy(self):
return set(self)
# The following operations should be implemented to be
# compatible with sets; this can be done by exploiting
# the above primitive operations:
@ -163,6 +166,14 @@ I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
# &=, -= (updating in place and returning self; but not |=, ^=)
#
# as well as their method counterparts (.union(), etc.).
#
# To specify the semantics, we can specify x == y as:
#
# set(x) == set(y) if both x and y are d_keys instances
# set(x) == y if x is a d_keys instance
# x == set(y) if y is a d_keys instance
#
# and so on for all other operations.
class d_items:
@ -180,9 +191,13 @@ I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
yield key, self.__d[key]
def remove(self, (key, value)):
if (key, value) not in self:
raise KeyError((key, value))
del self.__d[key]
def discard(self, item):
# Defined in terms of 'in' and .remove() so overriding
# those will update discard appropriately.
if item in self:
self.remove(item)
@ -192,10 +207,55 @@ I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
def clear(self):
self.__d.clear()
def copy(self):
return set(self)
# As well as the set operations mentioned for d_keys above.
# However the specifications suggested there will not work if
# the values aren't hashable. Fortunately, the operations can
# still be implemented efficiently. For example, this is how
# intersection can be specified:
# As well as the same set operations as mentioned for d_keys above.
def __and__(self, other):
if isinstance(other, (set, frozenset, d_keys)):
result = set()
for item in other:
if item in self:
result.add(item)
return result
if not isinstance(other, d_items):
return NotImplemented
d = {}
if len(other) < len(self):
self, other = other, self
for item in self:
if item in other:
key, value = item
d[key] = value
return d.items()
# And here is equality:
def __eq__(self, other):
if isinstance(other, (set, frozenset, d_keys)):
if len(self) != len(other):
return False
for item in other:
if item not in self:
return False
return True
if not isinstance(other, d_items):
return NotImplemented
if len(self) != len(other):
return False
for item in self:
if item not in other:
return False
return True
def __ne__(self, other):
# XXX Perhaps object.__ne__() should be defined this way.
result = self.__eq__(other)
if result is not NotImplemented:
result = not result
return result
class d_values:
@ -206,7 +266,9 @@ I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
return len(self.__d)
def __contains__(self, value):
# Slow! Do we even want to implement this?
# This is slow, and it's what "x in y" uses as a fallback
# if __contains__ is not defined; but I'd rather make it
# explicit that it is supported.
for v in self:
if v == value:
return True
@ -216,32 +278,71 @@ I'll try pseudo-code to specify the semantics::
for key in self.__d:
yield self.__d[key]
# Do we care about the following?
def __eq__(self, other):
if not isinstance(other, d_values):
return NotImplemented
if len(self) != len(other):
return False
# XXX Sometimes this could be optimized, but these are the
# semantics: we can't depend on the values to be hashable
# or comparable.
o = list(other)
for x in self:
try:
o.remove(x)
except ValueError:
return False
return True
def pop(self):
return self.__d.popitem()[1]
def __ne__(self, other):
result = self.__eq__(other)
if result is not NotImplemented:
result = not result
return result
def clear(self):
return self.__d.clear()
def copy(self):
# XXX What should this return?
# Should we bother implementing set-like operations on
# multisets? If so, how about mixed operations on sets and
# multisets? I'm not sure that these are worth the effort.
I'm soliciting better names than d_keys, d_values and d_items; these
classes will be public so that their implementations may be reused by
the .keys(), .values() and .items() methods of other mappings. (Or
should they?)
Note that we don't implement .copy() -- the presence of a .copy()
method suggests that the copy has the same type as the original, but
that's not feasible without copying the underlying dict. If you want
a copy of a specific type, like list or set, you can just pass one
of the above to the list() or set() constructor.
Open Issues
===========
Should the d_keys, d_values and d_items classes be reusable? Should
they be subclassable?
I've left out the implementation of various set operations. These
could still present surprises.
Should d_values have mutating methods (pop(), clear())? Strawman: no.
Should d_values implement set operations (as defined for multisets).
Strawman: no.
Should d_keys, d_values and d_items have a public instance variable or
method through which one can retrieve the underlying dict? Strawman:
yes (but what should it be called?).
I'm soliciting better names than d_keys, d_values and d_items. These
classes could be public so that their implementations could be reused
by the .keys(), .values() and .items() methods of other mappings. Or
should they?
Should the d_keys, d_values and d_items classes be reusable?
Strawman: yes.
Should they be subclassable? Strawman: yes (but see below).
A particularly nasty issue is whether operations that are specified in
terms of other operations (e.g. .discard()) must really be implemented
in terms of those other operations; this may appear irrelevant but it
becomes relevant if these classes are ever subclassed. Historically,
Python has a really poor track record of specifying the semantics of
highly optimized built-in types clearly in such cases; my strawman is
to continue that trend. Subclassing may still be useful to *add* new
methods, for example.
I'll leave the decisions (especially about naming) up to whoever
submits a working implementation.
References