On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 08:55:47PM -0700, Andrew Barnert wrote: [...] > But I don’t think that’s relevant here. You claimed that 'the > "arbitrary iterables" part is a distraction', but I think it’s > actually the whole point of the proposal. The initial suggestion is > that there are lots of iterables that are both a subset and a superset > of some set, and only the ones that are sets are equal to the set, and > not having a way to test for the ones that aren’t sets is the “missing > functionality” that needs to be added for completeness.
Well I'm glad that you got that out of Steve's posts, because I didn't :-) Assuming you are correct, isn't that easily done with a type conversion? A == set(B) We might argue about the inefficiency of having to build a set only to throw it away, but given that there's no real use-case for this (so far), only a sense of completeness, it might be good enough. Or one could do: A.issubset(B) and A.issuperset(B) assuming B isn't an iterator. > As far as I can tell, they’re just trying to add a method isequivalent > or iscoextensive or whatever that extends beyond == to handle non-set > iterables in the exact same way issubset and issuperset extend beyond > <= and >= to handle non-set iterables. If it were a method, set.equals() is the obvious name, since that's what it is actually testing for: set equality, without the conversion to a set. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/EAGRWTIVLX42ODPXH57AV5AERDAHJJBS/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/