On May 19, 9:06 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alan Isaac wrote: > > I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals: > > >https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&;... > > > That language has been rejected. > > You many want to read the discussion and see if > > acceptible language still seems discoverable. > > Seems to me that you're focusing on the wrong part of the docs. The > source of this "bug" is not sets or dicts, but the default __hash__ > method implementation. Why don't you propose adding something like: > > The default __hash__ method is based on an object's id(), and can > therefore change between different iterations of the same program. > > to the docs for __hash__: > > http://docs.python.org/ref/customization.html > > Then if you really feel you need to add something for sets and dicts, > you can add a cross-reference to the __hash__ docs. > > STeVe
Here's an idea--add All the proposed changes to the docs. Why not allow user's to add any explanations to the docs that they want? Then readers can choose the explanations that make the most sense to them. It would eliminate endless, petty discussions about what minutiae are more important, and it would allow people to spend their time on more productive efforts. And it would improve the docs exponentially. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
