[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 218 (sets); moving set.py to Lib
17 Aug 2002 19:45:12 -0400
[Guido van Rossum]
I felt comfortable, or at least I think so, with all the contents of the
message. All described compromises, not repeated here, seemed reasonable
to me. Except maybe for the following:
> - The set constructors have an optional second argument, sort_repr,
> defaulting to False, which decides whether the elements are sorted
> when str() or repr() is taken. I'm not sure if there would be
> negative consequences of removing this argument and always sorting
> the string representation.
Unless there is something deep attached to the properties of the sets
themselves, I do not understand why the sorting/non-sorting virtues of
`repr' should be tied with the constructor.
There is a precedent with dicts. They print non-sorted, but they
pretty-print (through the `pprint' module) sorted. Maybe the same could
be done for sets: use `pprint' if you want a sorted representation.
But otherwise, sets as well as dicts should print using the same order
by which elements are to be iterated upon or listed, in various other
François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard