问题
We know in Python 3.6 dictionaries are insertion ordered as an implementation detail, and in 3.7 insertion ordering can be relied upon.
I expected this to also be the case for subclasses of dict
such as collections.Counter
and collections.defaultdict
. But this appears to only hold true for the defaultdict
case.
So my questions are:
- Is it true that ordering is maintained for
defaultdict
but not forCounter
? And, if so, is there a straightforward explanation? - Should ordering of these
dict
subclasses in thecollections
module be considered implementation details? Or, for example, can we rely ondefaultdict
being insertion ordered likedict
in Python 3.7+?
Here are my rudimentary tests:
dict: ordered
words = ["oranges", "apples", "apples", "bananas", "kiwis", "kiwis", "apples"]
dict_counter = {}
for w in words:
dict_counter[w] = dict_counter.get(w, 0)+1
print(dict_counter)
# {'oranges': 1, 'apples': 3, 'bananas': 1, 'kiwis': 2}
Counter: unordered
from collections import Counter, defaultdict
print(Counter(words))
# Counter({'apples': 3, 'kiwis': 2, 'oranges': 1, 'bananas': 1})
defaultdict: ordered
dict_dd = defaultdict(int)
for w in words:
dict_dd[w] += 1
print(dict_dd)
# defaultdict(<class 'int'>, {'oranges': 1, 'apples': 3, 'bananas': 1, 'kiwis': 2})
回答1:
Counter
and defaultdict
are both ordered now, and you can rely on it. Counter
just doesn't look ordered because its repr
was designed before dict ordering was guaranteed, and Counter.__repr__ sorts entries by descending order of value.
def __repr__(self):
if not self:
return '%s()' % self.__class__.__name__
try:
items = ', '.join(map('%r: %r'.__mod__, self.most_common()))
return '%s({%s})' % (self.__class__.__name__, items)
except TypeError:
# handle case where values are not orderable
return '{0}({1!r})'.format(self.__class__.__name__, dict(self))
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52174284/how-are-counter-defaultdict-ordered-in-python-3-7