[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Changes by Terry J. Reedy : -- status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Changes by Terry J. Reedy : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: -> resolved ___ Python tracker ___

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: New changeset 4c7b368de7bcabdd821059c023c46c9d85668d3f by Terry Jan Reedy in branch '3.6': [3.6] bpo-30803: clarify truth value testing documentation (GH-2508) (#2946) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/4c7b368de7bcabdd821059c023c46c9d85668d3f

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Changes by Terry J. Reedy : -- pull_requests: +2995 ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: New changeset caa1280d1ee5f828f346b585169a7592371d3faa by Terry Jan Reedy (Peter Thomassen) in branch 'master': bpo-30803: clarify truth value testing documentation (#2508) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/caa1280d1ee5f828f346b585169a7592371d3faa

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- assignee: rhettinger -> terry.reedy ___ Python tracker ___

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Raymond, if you either unassign yourself or approve the current PR, I will merge and backport to 3.6 (but not 3.5). -- ___ Python tracker

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Peter Thomassen added the comment: I like your most recent suggestion, and updated the PR after fixing a typo ('Fractions') and making it more complete (complex numbers). Let me know if anything else is needed. (A mapping is not a specialized set, at least as far as typing is concerned:

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: Responding here to Peter's PR comment. Peter opened this issue with the claim that the doc failed a specific test case-- document the truth value of set(). Since mappings are (or can be viewed as) a specialized type of set, I always considered that the

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Terry J. Reedy added the comment: 1. You have to go to your profile page https://bugs.python.org/user26480 and add your GitHub name in the GitHub Name box. 2. A committer has to change the labels to trigger the robot to recheck. I did that but it did not work because of 1. As I said in my

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Peter Thomassen added the comment: I submitted a PR on github, and signed the CLA before doing so. (I double-checked my bpo username in the CLA, and my github username in the bpo profile.) Still, the bot says I need to sign the CLA. I'm not sure what to do? --

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Changes by Roundup Robot : -- pull_requests: +2579 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: This case was supposed to be covered by the last bullet point, "instances of user-defined classes, if the class defines a __bool__() or __len__() method, when that method returns the integer zero or bool value False.". The word "user-defined" should be

[issue30803] Truth value of sets not properly documented

New submission from Peter Thomassen: The truth value of sets is not properly documented, in particular regarding whether an empty set is considered false or not. Ignoring primitive (such as numerals) as well as user-defined types, https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#truth says: >