Duncan Booth wrote: > Peter Otten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here's another one: >> >>>>> set([1,9]) >> set([1, 9]) >>>>> set([9,1]) >> set([9, 1]) >> >> This time I did indeed search systematically... >> > You missed one with smaller values: >>>> set([8,0]) > set([8, 0]) >>>> set([0,8]) > set([0, 8])
I searched the minimal combination with one... > You can work some of it out quite easily instead of searching. The hash > value for an integer is itself, the initial space allocated for the set is > 8 slots so each value is reduced modulo 8. If the values you insert don't > clash then the order of insertion doesn't matter. If there are values > which coincide on the same slot then the second one inserted will go into > a different slot so the order may vary. I guess I have to move the goal posts to beat you: >>> set([-1,-2]), set([-2,-1]) (set([-2, -1]), set([-1, -2])) For that one the number of slots doesn't matter because >>> hash(-1), hash(-2) (-2, -2) Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
