why dict_items object does not support indexing

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












I know that you can cast dict_items into a list to allow item indexing. But I do not know why this operation is not allowed directly. Is it because dict_items objects are generators? If so, when I'm seeing



>>> "foo": "bar", "baz": "qux".items()
dict_items([('foo', 'bar'), ('baz', 'qux')])


is python evaluating my generator when repr is called?






python python-3.x







share|improve this question



















  • 2




    Note that you're not casting it to a list; you're creating a new list from it. Whether or not this is efficient depends on the Python implementation.
    – Jonathon Reinhart
    3 hours ago










  • There is no built-in named dict_items. I assume you mean the dict method items().
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    @martineau: type(.items()).__name__ -> 'dict_items'
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I think it's because the object of type dict_items that the dict.items() method returns is a dictionary view object which are dynamic and reflect changes that may be occurring to the dictionary on-the-fly—so indexing something like that which might change at any moment doesn't make too much sense. If you convert it to a list, the contents of that list would be changed by updates to the dictionary it came from.
    – martineau
    3 hours ago










  • Related: Accessing dictionary items by position in Python 3.6+ efficiently, specifically this answer.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago














up vote
6
down vote

favorite












I know that you can cast dict_items into a list to allow item indexing. But I do not know why this operation is not allowed directly. Is it because dict_items objects are generators? If so, when I'm seeing



>>> "foo": "bar", "baz": "qux".items()
dict_items([('foo', 'bar'), ('baz', 'qux')])


is python evaluating my generator when repr is called?






python python-3.x







share|improve this question



















  • 2




    Note that you're not casting it to a list; you're creating a new list from it. Whether or not this is efficient depends on the Python implementation.
    – Jonathon Reinhart
    3 hours ago










  • There is no built-in named dict_items. I assume you mean the dict method items().
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    @martineau: type(.items()).__name__ -> 'dict_items'
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I think it's because the object of type dict_items that the dict.items() method returns is a dictionary view object which are dynamic and reflect changes that may be occurring to the dictionary on-the-fly—so indexing something like that which might change at any moment doesn't make too much sense. If you convert it to a list, the contents of that list would be changed by updates to the dictionary it came from.
    – martineau
    3 hours ago










  • Related: Accessing dictionary items by position in Python 3.6+ efficiently, specifically this answer.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago












up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











I know that you can cast dict_items into a list to allow item indexing. But I do not know why this operation is not allowed directly. Is it because dict_items objects are generators? If so, when I'm seeing



>>> "foo": "bar", "baz": "qux".items()
dict_items([('foo', 'bar'), ('baz', 'qux')])


is python evaluating my generator when repr is called?






python python-3.x







share|improve this question















I know that you can cast dict_items into a list to allow item indexing. But I do not know why this operation is not allowed directly. Is it because dict_items objects are generators? If so, when I'm seeing



>>> "foo": "bar", "baz": "qux".items()
dict_items([('foo', 'bar'), ('baz', 'qux')])


is python evaluating my generator when repr is called?






python python-3.x




python python-3.x






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago









Mad Physicist

30.7k156389




30.7k156389










asked 3 hours ago









ohe

1,80911835




1,80911835







  • 2




    Note that you're not casting it to a list; you're creating a new list from it. Whether or not this is efficient depends on the Python implementation.
    – Jonathon Reinhart
    3 hours ago










  • There is no built-in named dict_items. I assume you mean the dict method items().
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    @martineau: type(.items()).__name__ -> 'dict_items'
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I think it's because the object of type dict_items that the dict.items() method returns is a dictionary view object which are dynamic and reflect changes that may be occurring to the dictionary on-the-fly—so indexing something like that which might change at any moment doesn't make too much sense. If you convert it to a list, the contents of that list would be changed by updates to the dictionary it came from.
    – martineau
    3 hours ago










  • Related: Accessing dictionary items by position in Python 3.6+ efficiently, specifically this answer.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago












  • 2




    Note that you're not casting it to a list; you're creating a new list from it. Whether or not this is efficient depends on the Python implementation.
    – Jonathon Reinhart
    3 hours ago










  • There is no built-in named dict_items. I assume you mean the dict method items().
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    @martineau: type(.items()).__name__ -> 'dict_items'
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    I think it's because the object of type dict_items that the dict.items() method returns is a dictionary view object which are dynamic and reflect changes that may be occurring to the dictionary on-the-fly—so indexing something like that which might change at any moment doesn't make too much sense. If you convert it to a list, the contents of that list would be changed by updates to the dictionary it came from.
    – martineau
    3 hours ago










  • Related: Accessing dictionary items by position in Python 3.6+ efficiently, specifically this answer.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago







2




2




Note that you're not casting it to a list; you're creating a new list from it. Whether or not this is efficient depends on the Python implementation.
– Jonathon Reinhart
3 hours ago




Note that you're not casting it to a list; you're creating a new list from it. Whether or not this is efficient depends on the Python implementation.
– Jonathon Reinhart
3 hours ago












There is no built-in named dict_items. I assume you mean the dict method items().
– martineau
3 hours ago




There is no built-in named dict_items. I assume you mean the dict method items().
– martineau
3 hours ago




3




3




@martineau: type(.items()).__name__ -> 'dict_items'
– Mad Physicist
3 hours ago




@martineau: type(.items()).__name__ -> 'dict_items'
– Mad Physicist
3 hours ago




1




1




I think it's because the object of type dict_items that the dict.items() method returns is a dictionary view object which are dynamic and reflect changes that may be occurring to the dictionary on-the-fly—so indexing something like that which might change at any moment doesn't make too much sense. If you convert it to a list, the contents of that list would be changed by updates to the dictionary it came from.
– martineau
3 hours ago




I think it's because the object of type dict_items that the dict.items() method returns is a dictionary view object which are dynamic and reflect changes that may be occurring to the dictionary on-the-fly—so indexing something like that which might change at any moment doesn't make too much sense. If you convert it to a list, the contents of that list would be changed by updates to the dictionary it came from.
– martineau
3 hours ago












Related: Accessing dictionary items by position in Python 3.6+ efficiently, specifically this answer.
– jpp
2 hours ago




Related: Accessing dictionary items by position in Python 3.6+ efficiently, specifically this answer.
– jpp
2 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote













dict_items do not support indexing because these objects are intended to be set-like, and sets do not support indexing.



They do quack like sets in other ways:



>>> d1 = 'k1': 'v1', 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'v3'
>>> d2 = 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'not v3'
>>> d1.items() & d2.items()
('k2', 'v2')
>>> d1.items() | d2.items()
('k1', 'v1'), ('k2', 'v2'), ('k3', 'not v3'), ('k3', 'v3')


If any value is not hashable, you lose the ability to treat the dict items views with set operations.



It is not sensible to give indexing support to dict_items views, because the dict does not have an ordering until Python 3.7+, so accessing "the 0th" item would not be well-defined. Even in Python 3.7, where there is a sensible ordering to use for indexing (i.e. the insertion order), it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, so it's not supported. The "unwritten rule" is that indexing should be constant-time operation (as it is for list, tuple, dict, str - see here).






share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
    – wim
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52900328%2fwhy-dict-items-object-does-not-support-indexing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
7
down vote













dict_items do not support indexing because these objects are intended to be set-like, and sets do not support indexing.



They do quack like sets in other ways:



>>> d1 = 'k1': 'v1', 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'v3'
>>> d2 = 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'not v3'
>>> d1.items() & d2.items()
('k2', 'v2')
>>> d1.items() | d2.items()
('k1', 'v1'), ('k2', 'v2'), ('k3', 'not v3'), ('k3', 'v3')


If any value is not hashable, you lose the ability to treat the dict items views with set operations.



It is not sensible to give indexing support to dict_items views, because the dict does not have an ordering until Python 3.7+, so accessing "the 0th" item would not be well-defined. Even in Python 3.7, where there is a sensible ordering to use for indexing (i.e. the insertion order), it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, so it's not supported. The "unwritten rule" is that indexing should be constant-time operation (as it is for list, tuple, dict, str - see here).






share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
    – wim
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago















up vote
7
down vote













dict_items do not support indexing because these objects are intended to be set-like, and sets do not support indexing.



They do quack like sets in other ways:



>>> d1 = 'k1': 'v1', 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'v3'
>>> d2 = 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'not v3'
>>> d1.items() & d2.items()
('k2', 'v2')
>>> d1.items() | d2.items()
('k1', 'v1'), ('k2', 'v2'), ('k3', 'not v3'), ('k3', 'v3')


If any value is not hashable, you lose the ability to treat the dict items views with set operations.



It is not sensible to give indexing support to dict_items views, because the dict does not have an ordering until Python 3.7+, so accessing "the 0th" item would not be well-defined. Even in Python 3.7, where there is a sensible ordering to use for indexing (i.e. the insertion order), it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, so it's not supported. The "unwritten rule" is that indexing should be constant-time operation (as it is for list, tuple, dict, str - see here).






share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
    – wim
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago













up vote
7
down vote










up vote
7
down vote









dict_items do not support indexing because these objects are intended to be set-like, and sets do not support indexing.



They do quack like sets in other ways:



>>> d1 = 'k1': 'v1', 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'v3'
>>> d2 = 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'not v3'
>>> d1.items() & d2.items()
('k2', 'v2')
>>> d1.items() | d2.items()
('k1', 'v1'), ('k2', 'v2'), ('k3', 'not v3'), ('k3', 'v3')


If any value is not hashable, you lose the ability to treat the dict items views with set operations.



It is not sensible to give indexing support to dict_items views, because the dict does not have an ordering until Python 3.7+, so accessing "the 0th" item would not be well-defined. Even in Python 3.7, where there is a sensible ordering to use for indexing (i.e. the insertion order), it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, so it's not supported. The "unwritten rule" is that indexing should be constant-time operation (as it is for list, tuple, dict, str - see here).






share|improve this answer














dict_items do not support indexing because these objects are intended to be set-like, and sets do not support indexing.



They do quack like sets in other ways:



>>> d1 = 'k1': 'v1', 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'v3'
>>> d2 = 'k2': 'v2', 'k3': 'not v3'
>>> d1.items() & d2.items()
('k2', 'v2')
>>> d1.items() | d2.items()
('k1', 'v1'), ('k2', 'v2'), ('k3', 'not v3'), ('k3', 'v3')


If any value is not hashable, you lose the ability to treat the dict items views with set operations.



It is not sensible to give indexing support to dict_items views, because the dict does not have an ordering until Python 3.7+, so accessing "the 0th" item would not be well-defined. Even in Python 3.7, where there is a sensible ordering to use for indexing (i.e. the insertion order), it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, so it's not supported. The "unwritten rule" is that indexing should be constant-time operation (as it is for list, tuple, dict, str - see here).







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago









user2357112

144k12147229




144k12147229










answered 3 hours ago









wim

150k45282409




150k45282409







  • 2




    That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
    – wim
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago













  • 2




    That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
    – Mad Physicist
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
    – martineau
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
    – wim
    3 hours ago






  • 2




    Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
    – jpp
    2 hours ago








2




2




That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
– Mad Physicist
3 hours ago




That's actually a much better reason than the one I gave of "It's not supported because there's no support for it" :)
– Mad Physicist
3 hours ago




1




1




wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
– martineau
3 hours ago




wim: How did you learn all this about the undocumented type? Just by experiments or perhaps reading the CPython source code?
– martineau
3 hours ago




1




1




Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
– wim
3 hours ago




Good question..reading the mailing lists, seeing the comments from CPython core developers on bugs.python.org, finding bugs in the implementation etc.
– wim
3 hours ago




2




2




Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
– jpp
2 hours ago





Good answer. To appreciate it is non-trivial to implement this with O(1) complexity, see this answer and the comments.
– jpp
2 hours ago


















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f52900328%2fwhy-dict-items-object-does-not-support-indexing%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more