Peter Pearson wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:37:03 +0200, Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tim Chase wrote: >> >>> Though for each test, in 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 that I've got >>> installed on my local machine, they each printed "s" in-order, >>> and the iteration occurred in-order as well, even without the >>> added "sorted(list(s))" code. >> >> You need more tests then ;) >> >>>>> list(set([1,1000])) >> [1000, 1] > > So one wonders, of course, why Mr. Otten chose 1000; and one explores: > > $ python > Python 2.4.3 (#2, Jul 31 2008, 21:56:52) > [snip] >>>> for x in 2, 100, 199, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600: > ... list( set( [ 1, x ] ) ) > ... > [1, 2] > [1, 100] > [1, 199] > [200, 1] > [1, 300] > [400, 1] > [1, 500] > [600, 1] >>>>
Here's another one: >>> set([1,9]) set([1, 9]) >>> set([9,1]) set([9, 1]) This time I did indeed search systematically... Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
