7stud wrote: > On May 19, 9:06 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alan Isaac wrote: >>> I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals: >>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&... >>> That language has been rejected. >>> You many want to read the discussion and see if >>> acceptible language still seems discoverable. >> Seems to me that you're focusing on the wrong part of the docs. The >> source of this "bug" is not sets or dicts, but the default __hash__ >> method implementation. Why don't you propose adding something like: >> >> The default __hash__ method is based on an object's id(), and can >> therefore change between different iterations of the same program. >> >> to the docs for __hash__: >> >> http://docs.python.org/ref/customization.html >> >> Then if you really feel you need to add something for sets and dicts, >> you can add a cross-reference to the __hash__ docs. > > Here's an idea--add All the proposed changes to the docs. Why not > allow user's to add any explanations to the docs that they want? Then > readers can choose the explanations that make the most sense to them. > It would eliminate endless, petty discussions about what minutiae are > more important, and it would allow people to spend their time on more > productive efforts.
Actually, it would just move the "endless, petty discussions about what minutiae are more important" into the docs. I don't see how that's an improvement. STeVe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list