Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-01.inet.qwest.net!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!auth.beige.octanews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: set and dict iteration
References: <b8dd3aca-2a87-4124-ad6e-66a8720af99a@googlegroups.com> <mailman.3389.1345146609.4697.python-list@python.org> <7xy5le7cli.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <502D7E17.1070103@dejaviewphoto.com> <mailman.3405.1345160667.4697.python-list@python.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:01:39 -0700
Message-ID: <7xvcgi8h70.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FNl7oH911tvnXFipq/dKyyaXb30=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lines: 12
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2012 20:01:39 CDT
X-Complaints-To: abuse@octanews.net
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:27216

Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> writes:
> With regard to key insertion and deletion while iterating over a dict
> or set, though, there is just no good reason to be doing that
> (especially as the result is very implementation-specific), and I
> wouldn't mind a more complete low-level check against it as long as
> it's not too expensive (which is not clearly the case with the current
> suggestion at all).

One possible approach is to freeze the dictionary against modification
while any iterator is open on it.  You could keep a count of active
iterators in the dict structure, adjusting it whenever an iterator is
created or closed/destroyed.