Is there any particular reason you don't allow storing arbitrary Python objects as values?

[b4hand]

I was curious if there was any particular reason you don't allow storing arbitrary Python objects as values?

It looks like the underlying C library just stores unsigned long as value_t, but it seems like you could store a PyObject * by simply casting it to value_t.

[kmike]

I think that's a good idea.

It seems it is better to still support "raw" int values (maybe in a base class) because this is more memory efficient when the values are ints.

[b4hand]

Yeah, I figured I'd rename the current Trie class to IntTrie or something similar and then add a new Trie class that allows arbitrary value storage.

[kmike]

That would be perfect.