On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:37, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> > If there are no objections, I propose to do the following (only in
> > Python 2.4 and 2.5):
> >
> > * Add set.union_update() as an alias for set.update().
>
> No. It was intentional to drop the duplicate method with the
> hard-to-u
> If there are no objections, I propose to do the following (only in
> Python 2.4 and 2.5):
>
> * Add set.union_update() as an alias for set.update().
No. It was intentional to drop the duplicate method with the
hard-to-use name. There was some thought given to deprecating
sets.union_upda
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>
> If there are no objections, I propose to do the following (only in
> Python 2.4 and 2.5):
>
> * Add set.union_update() as an alias for set.update().
> * Add to docstrings for all methods that 't' can be any iterable.
> * Update texinf
I've been looking at the API for sets.Set and built-in set objects in
Python 2.4.1 and I think I have found some minor inconsistencies.
Background: we have an object that is very similar to "sets" and we
originally modeled the API after sets.Set since we started with Python
2.3. Now I'm trying to
