On May 20, 3:12 am, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
"Raymond Hettinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
You are us
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
On May 19, 8:06 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems to me that you're focusing on the wrong part of the docs. The
> source of this "bug" is not sets or dicts,
Seems to me, this thread has lost touch with reality. There is no
bug, just a quest to make some random change to docs
7stud wrote:
>> Actually, it would just move the "endless, petty discussions about what
>> minutiae are more important" into the docs. I don't see how that's an
>> improvement.
>
> Because it highlights the issues you will be faced with when using the
> described functions. People will post about
>Actually, it would just move the "endless, petty discussions about what
>minutiae are more important" into the docs. I don't see how that's an
>improvement.
Because it highlights the issues you will be faced with when using the
described functions. People will post about an issue they had with a
7stud wrote:
> On May 19, 12:36 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The last thing I want to read in a language's documentation is an
>> ill-informed and sometimes interminable argument about a particular feature.
>
> Yet some readers will be able to get to the bottom of an issue they
>
7stud wrote:
> On May 19, 9:06 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alan Isaac wrote:
>>> I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals:
>>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&;...
>>> That language has been rejected.
>>> You many want
On May 19, 12:36 pm, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last thing I want to read in a language's documentation is an
> ill-informed and sometimes interminable argument about a particular feature.
>
Yet some readers will be able to get to the bottom of an issue they
are having by readin
7stud wrote:
> On May 19, 11:38 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Except in those instances where users added information that was
>> explicitly wrong.
>
> It's a self correcting mechanism. Other reader's will spot the error
> and post corrections.
>
The last thing I want to read in
On May 19, 11:38 am, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except in those instances where users added information that was
> explicitly wrong.
It's a self correcting mechanism. Other reader's will spot the error
and post corrections.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
7stud wrote:
> On May 19, 9:06 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alan Isaac wrote:
>>> I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals:
>>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&;...
>>> That language has been rejected.
>>> You many want
On May 19, 9:06 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Isaac wrote:
> > I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals:
>
> >https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&;...
>
> > That language has been rejected.
> > You many want to read the d
Alan Isaac wrote:
> I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&group_id=5470
>
> That language has been rejected.
> You many want to read the discussion and see if
> acceptible language still seems disco
I submitted the language based on Bill and Carsten's proposals:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1721372&group_id=5470
That language has been rejected.
You many want to read the discussion and see if
acceptible language still seems discoverable.
Alan Isaac
--
http:
This discussion ended abruptly, and I'd like to see it reach a
conclusion. I will attempt to synthesize Bill and Carsten's
proposals.
There are two proposed patches. The first is to
http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmapping.html
where it is proposed for footnote (3) to state:
Keys and values
On May 11, 7:41 pm, Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 11, 5:59 pm, "Alan Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is an attempt to synthesize Bill and Carsten's proposals.
> > (I'm changing the subject line to better match the topic.)
>
> >http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmap
On May 11, 5:59 pm, "Alan Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an attempt to synthesize Bill and Carsten's proposals.
> (I'm changing the subject line to better match the topic.)
>
> http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmapping.html:for footnote (3)
>
> Keys and values are listed in an ar
This is an attempt to synthesize Bill and Carsten's proposals.
(I'm changing the subject line to better match the topic.)
http://docs.python.org/lib/typesmapping.html: for footnote (3)
Keys and values are listed in an arbitrary order. This order is
indeterminate and generally dep
19 matches
Mail list logo
