Diogo Dutra <diogodutradam...@gmail.com> added the comment: > I wouldn't be surprised if there are other libraries or apps out there for which removing iterator support was an accidentally-breaking change and it may be strange if this is only is broken in 3.9.x, but working both before and after.
Justin, when the deprecation message has been removed, the iterator will works again, because the code will iterate just one time. So the behaviour you describe will happen anyway. My changes proposal is a “improvement”, because the second iteration can be made on the already created set. I think that change make senses because it removes unnecessary data creation. Em ter, 27 de out de 2020 às 00:24, Justin Arthur <rep...@bugs.python.org> escreveu: > > Justin Arthur <justinart...@gmail.com> added the comment: > > I believe the documentation may be referring to the English set and not a > Python set, but I could be wrong. > > Yury changed the wording from sequence to set in 3.7, but we didn't > document a breaking change as far as I know. The purpose of those set > constructions was to handle the many things other than a set that can be > passed in that may have non-unique values. Early asyncio documentation > included examples of passing wait() a list. > > I wouldn't be surprised if there are other libraries or apps out there for > which removing iterator support was an accidentally-breaking change and it > may be strange if this is only is broken in 3.9.x, but working both before > and after. > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue42140> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42140> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
