-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Tibor Simko wrote: > Hi Joe: > > On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Joe Blaylock wrote: >> And if so, is there any reason I can't rewrite this as x.intersect(y) >> to make it explicit? I'm not wild about the use of bitwise operators >> with operands which aren't (explicitly defined to be) bits. > > One may naturally use x.intersection(y) and friends, but `x & y' is a > perfectly legitimate equivalent with Python built-in sets, so there > should be no need to change that?
Until I saw this behavior on the part of intbitset, I didn't actually know that set() supported &, | and friends. I found it very surprising. > We may perhaps want to change intbitset's intersection() behaviour in > order to align it fully to that of the sets. But until then, `&' seems > better to use, due to these subtle behavioural similarities and > differences with sets. Ok, I can go with this. I agree that intbitset should conform completely to the set api, and I can accept that & is the right thing (for now). Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJL1y5jAAoJEGh+D3e/PaCrnkkP/2R8W6+uAgtnE1eCaaweWZLt Olh40Er0YRXx8gOr3endN9S7WAXhfEUJZ360Fdm/K5ma8hNkKlScrzwMCM977ivJ S949NK5SsyEMcBoaiN/+yO5hF7nfIp/+STtR1N/PqedMBepvpjpj7C95/flgCaZK fPRV12Np6KeDtWxpOK89ESVQ2Dx5hPS5kP9a1Xlkp2h4sffnlH7mWIriqt3ZpRqE gg+tYLJlVCr0t150O3iVIEKuOKWaozbMGfQexF8rgyZRO3cVdsceva0fRfuWg9Tc 6hK5Mp2GD7oEBA+CBuR5KrrbVe7KWctCxjfuleXdQ5d35pbDg9xhOV8uQ9Zhsfav 4n7xh/l+rr8JRgKnQTmFDn+j90owgNXW8dk8aTZKm4uEWH06M2S5QlvNaiVNrD/V 6ZSUzzT/NpPZD4I6UAFb2eGVcXmKSL/EHSwR7QkEv76v5Xe2V3du5D8gbdog7AGx fVETBhDcY6MMDoQaYH9Qgpu58ziDrdlSAfNNI6n3FU+vCx0nEevpTB63qb9tZwuu qsnDlJ/hlDXTmftlFOXMRbnXbK1tcAxVMXUp7UVpIssPW7e6fSqIOnsWSwIsoFI1 0Y3mEClz6tj9XzIAZOuT1y27l6i7AgmDePFzPNVL47NqBj8Gq1lyEdhR0JPHoFUF MoDiQR6s/9d73dWEMT6T =qYdG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
