On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:28 PM Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> wrote:
* The corresponding mathematical concept is unordered and it would be weird to impose such as order.

I'm with Raymond in not wanting sets to maintain insertion (or any) order.  Even though I don't doubt that Larry--and no doubt other folks, from time to time--have a use for an "ordered set," I feel like it is bad practice to encourage that way of thinking about sets and using them.

Admittedly, I was only lukewarm about making an insertion-order guarantee for dictionaries too.  But for sets I feel more strongly opposed.  Although it seems unlikely now, if some improved implementation of sets had the accidental side effects of making them ordered, I would still not want that to become a semantic guarantee.

That said, having OrderedSet in collections module would be fine by me.  It might have different performance characteristics, but so what? It would be a different class that folks could use or not, depending on how they felt about its behavior and performance profile.

Keeping medicines from the bloodstreams of the sick; food
from the bellies of the hungry; books from the hands of the
uneducated; technology from the underdeveloped; and putting
advocates of freedom in prisons.  Intellectual property is
to the 21st century what the slave trade was to the 16th.