On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 08:55:47PM -0700, Andrew Barnert wrote:
[...]
> But I don’t think that’s relevant here. You claimed that 'the
> "arbitrary iterables" part is a distraction', but I think it’s
> actually the whole point of the proposal. The initial suggestion is
> that there are lots of iterables that are both a subset and a superset
> of some set, and only the ones that are sets are equal to the set, and
> not having a way to test for the ones that aren’t sets is the “missing
> functionality” that needs to be added for completeness.
Well I'm glad that you got that out of Steve's posts, because I didn't
:-)
Assuming you are correct, isn't that easily done with a type conversion?
A == set(B)
We might argue about the inefficiency of having to build a set only to
throw it away, but given that there's no real use-case for this (so
far), only a sense of completeness, it might be good enough. Or one
could do:
A.issubset(B) and A.issuperset(B)
assuming B isn't an iterator.
> As far as I can tell, they’re just trying to add a method isequivalent
> or iscoextensive or whatever that extends beyond == to handle non-set
> iterables in the exact same way issubset and issuperset extend beyond
> <= and >= to handle non-set iterables.
If it were a method, set.equals() is the obvious name, since that's what
it is actually testing for: set equality, without the conversion to a
set.
--
Steven
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EAGRWTIVLX42ODPXH57AV5AERDAHJJBS/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
