Mike Meyer wrote: > I would have phrased it as "identical" instead of equal. Sets should > hold unique elements, where "unique" depends on the use at hand. For > some uses, "==" might be appropriate. For others, "is" might be > appropriate.
Sets, as currently defined, require hashable objects, i.e. objects which has same all the time and hash same as all other equal objects. Phrasing it as "identical" would be incorrect: hashes currently operate on equality, not identity. > Would you care to suggest an improved wording? No - I have learned that I cannot write documentation that others can understand. I usually write documentation which only attempts to be correct, and others than make it understandable. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
