Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset cd8b5b5b6356 by Raymond Hettinger in branch '3.4':
Issue 8743: Improve interoperability between sets and the collections.Set
abstract base class.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/cd8b5b5b6356
--
___
Changes by Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: - fixed
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
Attaching a draft patch with tests.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file35346/fix_set_abc.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
Ah, interesting - I completely missed the comparison operators in my patch and
tests. Your version looks good to me, though.
That looks like a patch against 2.7 - do you want to add 2.7 3.4 back to the
list of target versions for the fix?
--
Changes by Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
--
versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
Adding tests for non-set iterables as suggested by Serhiy.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file35353/fix_set_abc2.diff
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
Added tests that include the pure python sets.Set(). Only the binary
or/and/sub/xor methods are tested.
The comparison operators were designed to only interact with their own kind. A
comment from Tim Peters explains the decision raise a TypeError
Roundup Robot added the comment:
New changeset 3615cdb3b86d by Raymond Hettinger in branch '2.7':
Issue 8743: Improve interoperability between sets and the collections.Set
abstract base class.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/3615cdb3b86d
--
nosy: +python-dev
Raymond Hettinger added the comment:
Thanks for the patch update. I will look at it shortly.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
This didn't make it into 3.4, and the comment about needing a porting note
above still applies, so to 3.5 it goes.
--
priority: high - normal
versions: +Python 3.5 -Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
I updated the patch to apply cleanly to the default branch. I also added
several new test cases which uncovered issues with Daniel's previous patch.
Specifically:
- the reverse functions were not be tested properly (added a separate test to
ensure they all
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
I initially missed Mark's suggestion above to avoid the recursive subtraction
operation in __rsub__. v2 of my patch includes that tweak.
--
Added file:
http://bugs.python.org/file33864/issue8743-set-ABC-interoperability_v2.diff
Serhiy Storchaka added the comment:
I think set operations with iterable (but not set) should be tested.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Changes by Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
Raymond, will you have a chance to look at this before 3.4rc1? Otherwise I'd
like to take it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Changes by Martin Dengler mar...@martindengler.com:
--
nosy: +mdengler
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
Armin pointed out in
http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/5/21/porting-to-python-3-redux/ that one nasty
consequence of the remaining part of issue 2226 and this bug is making it much
harder than it should be to use the ItemsView, KeysView and ValuesView from
Changes by Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ncoghlan
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Changes by Serhiy Storchaka storch...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +serhiy.storchaka
versions: +Python 3.4
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Changes by Jesús Cea Avión j...@jcea.es:
--
nosy: +jcea
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Jesús Cea Avión added the comment:
Heads up, Issue #16373.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Changes by Andrew Svetlov andrew.svet...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +asvetlov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Changes by Raymond Hettinger raymond.hettin...@gmail.com:
--
assignee: stutzbach - rhettinger
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Mark Shannon m...@hotpy.org added the comment:
Review of set-with-Set.patch:
Looks good overall.
I agree that restricting operations to instances of Set rather than Iterable is
correct.
Implementing __rsub__ in terms of - (subtraction) means that infinite
recursion is a possibility. It also
Changes by Meador Inge mead...@gmail.com:
--
resolution: accepted -
stage: needs patch - patch review
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Changes by Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu:
--
versions: +Python 3.3 -Python 3.1
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Terry J. Reedy tjre...@udel.edu added the comment:
If the code were acting exactly as documented, I would consider this a feature
request. But require that the parameter also be an instance of set() (from
original message) is too limited.
set() | frozenset()
set()
So 'set' in their operator
Changes by David Stanek dsta...@dstanek.com:
--
nosy: +dstanek
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Daniel Stutzbach stutzb...@google.com added the comment:
Would it be sufficient to:
1) Restrict collections.Set()'s operators to accept collection.Set but not
arbitrary iterables, and
2) Fix Issue2226 and let set() | MySimpleSet() work via collections.Set.__ror__
Attached is a patch that
Changes by Daniel Urban urban.dani...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +durban
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Daniel, do you have time to work on this one?
If so, go ahead an make setobject.c accept any instance of collections.Set and
make the corresponding change to the ABCs:
def __or__(self, other):
if not
Daniel Stutzbach stutzb...@google.com added the comment:
Yes, I can take a stab at it.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
No need to rush this for the beta. It's a bug fix and can go in at any time.
The important thing is that we don't break the C code. The __ror__ magic
method would still need to do the right thing and the C code needs to
Changes by Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net:
--
Removed message: http://bugs.python.org/msg117005
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
After discussion on IRC, have decided to make the Set ABC more closely match
setobject.c:
1) loosen setobject.c binary operations to accept any Set rather than any
set/frozenset (see attached patch).
2) tighten Set.__or__,
Changes by Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net:
--
Removed message: http://bugs.python.org/msg116998
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
After discussion on IRC, have decided to make the Set ABC more closely match
setobject.c by loosening setobject.c binary operations to accept any Iterable
rather than any just a set/frozenset.
--
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Rough cut at a first patch is attached.
Still thinking about whether Set operations should be accepting any iterable or
whether they should be tightened to expect other Set instances. The API for
set() came from set.py
Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com added the comment:
Raymond, do you agree with Ray's analysis?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
The operator methods in setobject.c should be liberalized to accept instances
of collections.Set as arguments. For speed, they should continue to check
PyAnySet_Check(other) first and then if that fails, fall back to
Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com added the comment:
The operator methods in setobject.c should be liberalized to accept
instances of collections.Set as arguments.
Under this plan, set() and collections.Set will still have slightly different
behavior. collections.Set will be
Changes by Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net:
--
priority: normal - high
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Changes by Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org:
--
nosy: -gvanrossum
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Python-bugs-list
Ray.Allen ysj@gmail.com added the comment:
In my opinion, the set's operator should be a bit more liberal and accept any
collections.Set instances. Given collections.Set is an ABC and isinstance(set,
collections.Set) is True, the set methods should(strong recommended) follow all
the
Changes by Georg Brandl ge...@python.org:
--
assignee: - rhettinger
nosy: +rhettinger
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
___
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
Guido, do you have a recommendation?
--
assignee: rhettinger - gvanrossum
nosy: +gvanrossum
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
Guido van Rossum gu...@python.org added the comment:
No idea, I don't even know what collections.Set is. :-(
--
assignee: gvanrossum -
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
Changes by Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net:
--
assignee: - rhettinger
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8743
___
New submission from Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com:
The set() operators (__or__, __and__, __sub__, __xor__, and their in-place
counterparts) require that the parameter also be an instance of set().
They're documented that way: This precludes error-prone constructions like
Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com added the comment:
I should add:
I discovered the inconsistency while working on my sortedset class, which
provides the same interface as set() but is also indexable like a list (e.g.,
S[0] always returns the minimum element, S[-1] returns the
50 matches
Mail list logo
