Hi Nick,
On 22 Sep., 00:02, Nick Alexander wrote:
> Just for the record, "sorted sets" make very little sense.
Sure. When I said "unless something implements a __cmp__ method..." I
did not mean that one *should* implement it; I just wanted to explain
"sorted(...) relies on a __cmp__ method, s
> I'll likely add to Trac a ticket about the need for a comparison
> method on sets later today when I get a chance.
Just for the record, "sorted sets" make very little sense. It is
important to be able to have a set containing anything that is
hashable (in the python sense) but not necessar
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the explanation and isolating the problem, plus the
workaround for getting a unique result. I did have doctesting in the
back of my mind, even though it is not necessary at the moment for the
patch in question.
I'll likely add to Trac a ticket about the need for a compariso
Hi!
On Sep 21, 10:22 am, Simon King wrote:
[...]
> So, unless someone implements __cmp__ (or similar) methods for
> Set_object_enumerated, you can't expect to get anything meaningful out
> of the sorting.
If your question is just about getting *some* unique result (say, for
a doc test): You can
Hi Rob!
On Sep 21, 2:15 am, Rob Beezer wrote:
> sage: g = Graph()
> sage: g.add_vertices(Subsets(3,2))
> sage: g.vertices()
> [{2, 3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}]
> sage: sorted(g.vertices())
> [{1, 3}, {1, 2}, {2, 3}]
> sage: Subsets(3,2).list()
> [{1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3}]
> sage: sorted(Subsets(3,2).list()
