Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.070 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.86; '*S*': 0.00; 'iterate': 0.09; 'cc:addr :python-list': 0.11; '"to': 0.16; 'dict': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'keys.': 0.16; 'keys:': 0.16; 'option:': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'obviously': 0.18; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'visible': 0.24; 'question': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'header :In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; "doesn't": 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; "d'aprano": 0.31; 'end,': 0.31; 'steven': 0.31; 'subject:all': 0.32; 'are:': 0.33; "i'd": 0.34; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'two': 0.37; 'performance': 0.37; 'list,': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'little': 0.38; 'delete': 0.39; 'enough': 0.39; 'deleting': 0.60; 'new': 0.61; "you're": 0.61; 'save': 0.62; 'approaches': 0.68; '"not': 0.84; 'compare:': 0.84; 'contents,': 0.84; 'snapshot': 0.84; 'to:none': 0.92 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc :content-type; bh=K1VLZHL1ExHeZls53wbhFzhfLiT7qRBRtK0uLosQTeU=; b=CC01rT25LBSGifm/Y2fKnzmFLgVC/oQIvQfy08oiJmyZec2bFXx8rx1wnxO+bp5v97 Qa6ll4Inji35gR4hescahDMSl8CDVcZoKpoDadOGF72xX4Io8INLwXzjxwxbRe1y9FNs aFakgIhIxc8uLt0AI9pS+IIA3z4WSAla05NAyEaqMe311ZBIp0amkDQlT5tyMY1Yvwip Axk861/IxRmUFQhtYasTXmXq8Lc21zV3EWpVSTQxWZuWUbX0ucp2whVB9qjLqWy+crrS xUdZz6bXCe+W4IJTSJujdX2sahi52k/zvCJYQALWlWiVaZBrfHsND88dAX5NLRSwP9bj Xh2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.58.154.10 with SMTP id vk10mr15738352veb.18.1398566948532; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:49:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <535c67e9$0$29965$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> References: <535AA12A.1030203@earthlink.net> <535c67e9$0$29965$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:49:08 +1000 Subject: Re: Proper deletion of selected items during map iteration in for loop: Thanks to all From: Chris Angelico Cc: "python-list@python.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1398566956 news.xs4all.nl 2890 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:45130 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:70643 On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I think the two obviously good enough approaches are: > > - save a "to be deleted" list, then delete those keys; > > - copy the "not to be deleted" items into a new dict For a small enough dict that the performance question doesn't matter, I'd go with the other option: iterate over a snapshot of the keys. Compare: # Naive approach: for k in d: if f(k): del d[k] # Snapshot of keys: for k in list(d): if f(k): del d[k] No extra loop at the end, no switching out and in of contents, just one little change in the loop header. Obviously you don't want to do this when you're deleting two out of three billion, but for smallish dicts, that won't make a visible change. ChrisA