Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> added the comment:
This section presumes that the usual hash invariant holds: a==b implies hash(a)==hash(b). We could repeat that here but I don't think it makes the docs better or more useable to require that docs repeat the same facts in multiple places. Alternatively, the sentence could be split to cover both cases: """ For sequence container types such as list, tuple, or collections.deque, the expression `x in y` is equivalent to `any(x is e or x == e for e in y)`. For container that use hashing, such as dict, set, or frozenset, the expression `x in y` is equivalent to `any(x is e or x == e for e in y if hash(x) == hash(e))`. """ While that is more precise, it borders on being pedantic and likely doesn't make the average reader better off. Consider submitting a feature request to pandas suggesting that they harmonize their hash functions with their counterparts in numpy. ---------- nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue45832> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
