Austin Bingham wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Ethan Furman <et...@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~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
