[Guido van Rossum] I felt comfortable, or at least I think so, with all the contents of the message. All described compromises, not repeated here, seemed reasonable to me. Except maybe for the following: > - The set constructors have an optional second argument, sort_repr, > defaulting to False, which decides whether the elements are sorted > when str() or repr() is taken. I'm not sure if there would be > negative consequences of removing this argument and always sorting > the string representation. Unless there is something deep attached to the properties of the sets themselves, I do not understand why the sorting/non-sorting virtues of `repr' should be tied with the constructor. There is a precedent with dicts. They print non-sorted, but they pretty-print (through the `pprint' module) sorted. Maybe the same could be done for sets: use `pprint' if you want a sorted representation. But otherwise, sets as well as dicts should print using the same order by which elements are to be iterated upon or listed, in various other circumstances. -- François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4