On May 13, 4:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Dismissing this as not a "real problem" is both wrong > and offensive to people taking the time to actually > propose improvements.
I should have elaborated on what I meant by saying that there is not a real problem. Another way to put it is that the docs are sufficient when they say that set ordering is arbitrary. That should be a cue to not have *any* expectations about the internal ordering of sets and dicts. Any further documentation of behavior would be a mistake because it would of necessity expose implementation specific details. For instance, there is another intentionally undocumented observable behavior that sets and dicts change their internal order as new members are added. It is also intentional that Python makes almost no promises about the location of objects in memory. IIRC, the only guarantees made about object identity are that "a is a" is always true and None can be tested with "is". Raymond -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
