Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
r67249
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue4090
___
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Attaching a proposed doc fix-up for this little can of worms (and for
issue 4087).
--
keywords: +patch
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file12018/expr.diff
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Dickinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
[Raymond]
I don't think this is necessary.
I disagree. I think some sort of warning is necessary; it doesn't need
to be particularly prominent, but it should be there.
Almost *all* expectations are broken for sets in the absence of
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I'll update the note in the Ref Manual section on comparisons.
The docs on sets, dicts, and other containers need to remain clean. I
object to littering the docs with these kind of omg danger messages.
For beginners using the docs to
Terry J. Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
Para 1: Thank you.
Pars 2: I understand and accept your concern.
Para 3. You are right odd comparisons are the root of several problems.
Following you suggestion, let's at least add one blanket,
cover-our-asses warning at the bottom of the
New submission from Terry J. Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
RefMan Expressions Comparisons has a subsection headed
Comparison of objects of the same type depends on the type
with entries for numbers, bytes, strings, tuples, lists, mappings, and
most_other (compared by id). Sets (and dict views) are
Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
I don't think this is necessary. The ordering operators for sets are
already documented to mean subset/superset comparisons. Will look at it
a bit more and possibly add a parenthetical note reminding people that
superset/superset are not
