Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com added the comment:
Can the attached script be converted in a unittest that tests that the fix is
correct?
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue8757
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
See r83757, r83756, and r83755.
The existing unittests prove the script does what it is supposed to do. The
new code is just a different approach to the same problem so that it is less
likely to be user visible.
The
Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com added the comment:
It is easy in online communications to interpret a response as a disagreement.
I apologize for falling into that trap.
I am +1 on removing implicit set-to-frozenset conversions, which would more
effectively fix issue8752 for
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
FWIW, I'm am considering removing this functionality in Py3.3 after the
language moratorium ends.
The swap-bodies technique had been included in the original sets.py and the
technique is similar to the one list.sort() uses
Daniel Stutzbach dan...@stutzbachenterprises.com added the comment:
The swap bodies technique has been used in list.sort for a long time, but users
expect list.sort to mutate the list.
Even with a pure-Python implementation of sets, I would not expect __contains__
to be a mutating method
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
I didn't disagree with you. The swap bodies implementation technique is not
expected and is exploitable in a number of ways.
What outcome to you want? Eliminate the implicit set-to-frozenset conversion
feature; introduce
Raymond Hettinger rhettin...@users.sourceforge.net added the comment:
FWIW, the current docs adequately cover the existing situation:
Note, the elem argument to the __contains__(), remove(), and discard() methods
may be a set. To support searching for an equivalent frozenset, the elem set is
