Are dictionaries the same as hashtables?

[Cameron Laird]

In article <6hioi7Fmdo37U1 at mid.uni-berlin.de>,
Diez B. Roggisch <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
>Cameron Laird wrote:
>
>> In article <6hi153Fliuu4U1 at mid.uni-berlin.de>,
>> Diez B. Roggisch <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
>>>Martin Marcher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-08-26 00:32:20, cnb wrote:
>>>>> Are dictionaries the same as hashtables?
>> .
>> .
>> .
>>>Python does not have a "one key maps to a list of values"-semantics -
>>>which I consider the sane choice...
>>>
>>>However, you can have that using the defaultdict for example:
>>>
>>>listdict = defaultdict(list)
>>>
>>>listdict[key].append(value)
>>>
>>>Diez
>> 
>> ?  I'm lost.  As I understand your terms, Python's dictionaries
>> map keys to objects, but you would prefer that Python's
>> dictionaries map keys only to lists of values.  That *sounds*
>> like a complexification, at best.  Are you trying to make a
>> point about implementation aligning with semantics?
>
>The OP seems to want that (or at least sees it as one of two viable design
>choices), see his other answer in this thread.
>
>I certainly *don't* agree with that, I merely pointed out that python comes
>with means to easily create such a data-structure in the case it is needed.
>
>Diez

Oh!  Thanks for clearing *that* up; I certainly had a different 
impression.

To the original poster then:  please be aware that the values of
Python's dictionaries not only can be any first-class objects,
but it's quite common--quite common in *my* code, anyway--for
dictionaries to range over lists, tuples, functions, other
dictionaries, and more.  Python needn't change to allow you to
write any of this.