On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettin...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1a. Liberalize setobject.c binary operator methods, restrict SetABC > methods, and add named methods (like difference, update, etc) that accept > any iterable.
> 2. We could liberalize builtin set objects to accept any iterable as an > "other" argument to a binary set operator. This choice is not entirely > backwards compatible because it would break code depending on being able run > __ror__, __rand__, etc after a NotImplemented value is returned. That being > said, I think it unlikely that such code exists. The real disadvantage is > that it replicates the problems with list.__add__ and Guido has said before > that he doesn't want to do that again. > I was leaning towards #1 or #1a and the guys on IRC thought #2 would be > better. Now I'm not sure and would like additional input so I can get this > bug closed for 3.2. Any thoughts on the subject would be appreciated. > Thanks, My own inclination would be to go with #1a, *unless* Guido chimes in to say he's OK with having the set operators accept arbitrary iterators. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
