>> Robert Kern wrote: >>> http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmapping.html >>> """ >>> Keys and values are listed in an arbitrary order which is non-random, varies >>> across Python implementations, and depends on the dictionary's history of >>> insertions and deletions. >>> """
> Alan G Isaac wrote: >> Even this does not tell me that if I use a specified implementation >> that my results can vary from run to run. That is, it still does >> not communicate that rerunning an *unchanged* program with an >> *unchanged* implementation can produce a change in results. "Robert Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > The last clause does tell me that. 1. About your reading of the current language: I believe you, of course, but can you tell me **how** it tells you that? To be concrete, let us suppose parallel language were added to the description of sets. What about that language should allow me to anticipate Peter's example (in this thread)? 2. About possibly changing the docs: You are much more sophisticated than ordinary users. Did this thread not demonstrate that even sophisticated users do not see into this "implication" immediately? Replicability of results is a huge deal in some circles. I think the docs for sets and dicts should include a red flag: do not use these as iterators if you want replicable results. (Side note to Carsten: this does not require listing "every little thing".) Cheers, Alan Isaac -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list