set using alternative hash function?

[Ethan Furman]

Austin Bingham wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Ethan Furman <ethan at stoneleaf.us> wrote:
> 
>>Austin Bingham wrote:
>>I'm feeling really dense about now... What am I missing?
> 
> 
> What you're missing is the entire discussion up to this point. I was
> looking for a way to use an alternative uniqueness criteria in a set
> instance without needing to modify my class.

Really?  Is that what you wanted?  You know, I would never have guessed 
that from

 >>>>If I understand things correctly, the set class uses hash()
 >>>>universally to calculate hash values for its elements. Is
 >>>>there a standard way to have set use a different function?

But hey, perhaps my reading comprehension was not at its best yesterday.

Hmmm, actually, I think I did get that.  What I missed is why you care 
which object stays in your precious little set, as long as you have one? 
  If it doesn't matter, use a dict and stop wasting our time.  If it 
does, tell us why and assuage our curiousity.

>>So is that the behavior you're wanting, keeping the first object and
>>discarding all others?  Or is there something else I'm still missing?
> 
> 
> Yes and yes. I want "normal" set behavior, but I want the set to use
> user-provided hash and equality tests, i.e. ones that don't
> necessarily call __hash__ and __eq__ on the candidate elements.
> 
> Austin

As for what you want:  No, it's not currently possible.  If it's so big 
a deal that the various methods presented don't meet with your approval, 
break out the C and write your own.  Then you could give that back to 
the community instead of your snide remarks.

~Ethan~