[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 218 (sets); moving set.py to Lib
Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:49:45 -0400
On Sat, Aug 17, 2002, François Pinard wrote:
> [Guido van Rossum]
>> - 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
Aahz (email@example.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
Project Vote Smart: http://www.vote-smart.org/