Danilo J. S. Bellini added the comment: Wouldn't a fix for all standard collections be a fix for Python 3.5+, therefore another issue? http://bugs.python.org/issue23870
This issue is about sets/frozensets Python 3.2+, and I'm pretty sure it's backwards compatible, as I don't think any code running on Python 3.2.6 would depend on pprint randomness (how could?). Also, a multiline pprint would sort (tested with Python 3.2.6): >>> pprint.pprint(set(string.digits), width=7) {'0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'} I see no reason to see a fix to this inconsistent behavior (sorting on multiline, not sorting on single line) as an enhancement just for a new Python 3.6 version. Besides being backwards compatible, the test_pprint was really verifying the order on set(range(n)) for small n, something that is already sorted by set.__repr__ but appears in test_pprint, which make me think it was intended as a pretty printer test, not as a set.__repr__ test. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27495> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com