Diez B. Roggisch wrote: > Not really, but that depends on what you know about the concept of sets and > maps as collections of course. > > The contract for sets and dicts doesn't imply any order whatsoever. Which is > essentially the reason why > > set(xrange(10))[0] > > doesn't exist, and quite a few times cries for an ordered dictionary as part > of the standard libraries was made.
It seems to me that you are missing the point, but maybe I am missing your point. The question of whether a set or dict guarantees some order seems quite different from the question of whether rerunning an **unchanged program** yields the **unchanged results**. The latter question is the question of replicability. Again I point out that some sophisticated users (among which I am not numbering myself) did not see into the source of this "anomaly". This suggests that an explicit warning is warranted. Cheers, Alan Isaac PS I know ordered dicts are under discussion; what about ordered sets? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list