[PATCH 1 of 2] sortdict: add iteritems method

[Augie Fackler]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 05:19:45PM +0000, Pierre-Yves David wrote:
>
>
> On 11/07/2014 04:05 PM, Sean Farley wrote:
> >
> >Didly writes:
> >
> >>On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Sean Farley
> >><sean.michael.farley at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>># HG changeset patch
> >>># User Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com>
> >>># Date 1413475012 25200
> >>>#      Thu Oct 16 08:56:52 2014 -0700
> >>># Node ID 45fd23c47bb429c84e28a3303fb2a1097c5082e2
> >>># Parent  2d54aa5397cdb1c697673ba10b7618d5ac25c69e
> >>>sortdict: add iteritems method
> >>>
> >>>Nothing really fancy, just adding this method to make sure when iteritems is
> >>>used that it is iterated in correct order.
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/mercurial/util.py b/mercurial/util.py
> >>>--- a/mercurial/util.py
> >>>+++ b/mercurial/util.py
> >>>@@ -367,10 +367,12 @@ class sortdict(dict):
> >>>              pass
> >>>      def keys(self):
> >>>          return self._list
> >>>      def iterkeys(self):
> >>>          return self._list.__iter__()
> >>>+    def iteritems(self):
> >>>+        return self.items().__iter__()
> >>>
> >>>  class lrucachedict(object):
> >>>      '''cache most recent gets from or sets to this dictionary'''
> >>>      def __init__(self, maxsize):
> >>>          self._cache = {}
> >>
> >>Won't this code construct the items() list first, and then iterate
> >>over it? If so, maybe it would be best to do it the other way around,
> >>i.e. write a proper sortdict.iteritems method, using a for loop and
> >>yield and then make the sortdict.items method return
> >>list(self.iteritems()).
> >>
> >>Of course this would not matter much unless the sortdict is big, but
> >>then you would not need iteritems unless that were the case, right?
> >
> >You are correct. My intention with this patch was that
> >sortdict.iteritems() should Do The Right Thing™. Creating a sortdict and
> >then (out of habit) calling iteritems() should return the keys in order.
> >
> >Following the maxim, "make it work, profile, make it faster, in that
> >order", I figure that if this turns out to be a noticeable slowdown then
> >we can fix it later.
>
> Meh sending adding an iteritems that is actually not doing the one job
> iteritems is supposed to do is a not super appealing.
>
> Making it properly looks trivial. Can you send a V2 with `iteritems` doing
> the right thing and explanation of why you need it in the description?

I queued these and forgot to tell the list (e3be8027abe9), should I drop them?

>
>
> --
> Pierre-Yves David
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel