[issue16365] IDLE for Windows 8
j s added the comment: I had this issue too, I realised that I had installed the 32bit version on a machine running 64bit. So I uninstalled and installed the 64bit and it's fine now. -- nosy: +evilpandas ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue16365> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue27495] Pretty printing sorting for set and frozenset instances
New submission from Danilo J. S. Bellini:
The pprint pretty printer in Python 3 sorts sets/frozensets only if their
length don't fit in one single line/row for the given width, else it was just
leaving repr(my_set_instance) alone, like:
>>> import string, pprint
>>> pprint.pprint(set(string.digits))
{'7', '5', '2', '4', '1', '9', '6', '3', '0', '8'}
That order is quite random in Python 3.2+. But on Python 2.6 and 2.7, the
result is shown as:
set(['0', '1', '2', '3', '4', '5', '6', '7', '8', '9'])
So for using pprint in doctests (or anything alike) with sets/frozensets, the
pretty printer isn't as useful in Python 3 than it is in Python 2. The pprint
tests for non-nested set/frozenset were only using some small ranges for
testing. I've written a patch to solve that.
--
components: Library (Lib)
files: pprint_small_set_sorted.patch
keywords: patch
messages: 270237
nosy: danilo.bellini
priority: normal
severity: normal
status: open
title: Pretty printing sorting for set and frozenset instances
type: behavior
versions: Python 3.2, Python 3.3, Python 3.4, Python 3.5, Python 3.6
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file43698/pprint_small_set_sorted.patch
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27495>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
[issue27495] Pretty printing sorting for set and frozenset instances
Danilo J. S. Bellini added the comment:
Wouldn't a fix for all standard collections be a fix for Python 3.5+, therefore
another issue? http://bugs.python.org/issue23870
This issue is about sets/frozensets Python 3.2+, and I'm pretty sure it's
backwards compatible, as I don't think any code running on Python 3.2.6 would
depend on pprint randomness (how could?). Also, a multiline pprint would sort
(tested with Python 3.2.6):
>>> pprint.pprint(set(string.digits), width=7)
{'0',
'1',
'2',
'3',
'4',
'5',
'6',
'7',
'8',
'9'}
I see no reason to see a fix to this inconsistent behavior (sorting on
multiline, not sorting on single line) as an enhancement just for a new Python
3.6 version. Besides being backwards compatible, the test_pprint was really
verifying the order on set(range(n)) for small n, something that is already
sorted by set.__repr__ but appears in test_pprint, which make me think it was
intended as a pretty printer test, not as a set.__repr__ test.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27495>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
