[Guido] > ... > My current approach (now in CVS!) is to remove the sort_repr flag to > the constructor, but to provide a method that can produce a sorted or > an unsorted representation. +1. That's the best way to go. > __repr__ will always return the items unsorted, which matches what repr > (dict) does. After all, I think it could be confusing to a user when > 'print s' shows > > Set([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]) > > but > > for i in s: print i, > > prints > > 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 >>> from sets import Set >>> print Set(range(10)) Set([0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]) >>> When I optimized a useless ~ out of the dict code for 2.2, it became much more likely that the traversal order for an int-keyed dict would match numeric order. I have evidence that this has fooled newbies into believing that dicts are ordered maps! If it wouldn't cost an extra cycle, I'd be tempted to slop the ~ back in again <0.9 wink>.
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