Thanks to all who replied - also to Ben. I had foolishly assumed that
the same set exhibits the same rep on at least one platform. Like any
bug, the falsity of my assumption took months to expose - till then,
things had worked fine. Needless to say I'm new to Python. (The double
printing is because I tend to work within an Emacs inferior shell.)
Cheers,
Ganesh
On 10/16/11 8:23 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
Ganesh Gopalakrishnan<gan...@cs.utah.edu> writes:
This probably is known, but a potential pitfall (was, for me) nevertheless.
I suspect it is due to hash collisions between 's3' and 's13' in this
case?
What is the actual problem? What behaviour is occurring that doesn't
match your expectation?
S1==S2
S1==S2
True
str(S1)
str(S1)
"{'s8', 's13', 's2', 's0', 's7', 's6', 's4', 's3', 's14'}"
str(S2)
str(S2)
"{'s8', 's3', 's2', 's0', 's7', 's6', 's4', 's13', 's14'}"
str(S1) == str(S2)
False
Right, that's all correct (though I don't know why some of your
expressions are being shown twice). A deliberate property of a set is
that its items are unordered.
<URL:http://docs.python.org/library/stdtypes.html#set>
Since sets are unordered, the string representation may show the items
in an arbitrary and unpredictable sequence. Don't write any code that
depends on a predictable sequence of retrieval from an unordered
collection.
So what did you expect instead, and what supports that expectation?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
