a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes: > That reminds me: one co-worker (who really should have known better ;-) > had the impression that sets were O(N) rather than O(1). Although > writing that off as a brain-fart seems appropriate, it's also the case > that the docs don't really make that clear, it's implied from requiring > elements to be hashable. Do you agree that there should be a comment?
It's O(1) with reasonable input distributions but can be O(N) for adverse distributions. The docs should say something like that, and include this link: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~scrosby/hash/CrosbyWallach_UsenixSec2003/index.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
