On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 02:05:49PM +0000, Rob Cliffe via Python-ideas wrote:
> >>> s = set("a") > >>> t = list("aa") > >>> s.issubset(t) > True > >>> s.issuperset(t) > True > > but it would be misleading IMO to say that s and t are in some sense > equal. In *some* sense they are equal: - every element in s is also in t; - every element in t is also in s; - no element in s is not in t; - no element in t is not in s; - modulo uniqueness, both s and t have the same elements; - converting t to a set gives {'a'} which is equal to s. I don't know that this is an *important* sense, but the OP Steve J isn't wrong to notice it. I shouldn't need to say this, but for the record I am not proposing and do not want set equality to support lists; nor do I see the need for a new method to perform "equivalent to equality" tests; but if the consensus is that sets should have that method, I would prefer it to be given the simpler name: set.superset # not .equivalent_to_superset set.subset # not .equivalent_to_subset set.equals # not some variation of .equivalent_to_equals -- 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/R3XOET3YXZCWJYSQENIULAZBKPL5GZVW/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/