[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing lis

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset aa2bf603a9bd by Raymond Hettinger in branch '2.7': Issue #26020: Add news entry https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/aa2bf603a9bd -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset a8d504600c18 by Raymond Hettinger in branch '2.7': Issue #26020: Fix evaluation order for set literals https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/a8d504600c18 -- ___ Python tracker

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Roundup Robot added the comment: New changeset 0967531fc762 by Raymond Hettinger in branch '3.5': Issue #26020: Fix evaluation order for set literals https://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/0967531fc762 -- nosy: +python-dev ___ Python tracker

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: I've got it. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://ma

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

R. David Murray added the comment: Ping. (Raymond, if you are OK with someone else committing this, you could un-assign it.) -- nosy: +r.david.murray ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: > Please don't forget to fix BUILD_SET_UNPACK to match. Isn't it already correct? > Also, please add the following test: "{*{True, 1}}" Did you meant "{*{True}, *{1}}"? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Neil Girdhar added the comment: Ah, sorry, I somehow went cross-eyed. Not sure offhand which test would test the BUILD_TUPLE_UNPACK, but I think you're right Serhiy. Could just add both? -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Neil Girdhar added the comment: Please don't forget to fix BUILD_SET_UNPACK to match. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list m

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Neil Girdhar added the comment: Also, please add the following test: "{*{True, 1}}" Should be True. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Pyt

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: LGTM. -- components: +Interpreter Core -Documentation nosy: +serhiy.storchaka stage: patch review -> commit review type: -> behavior ___ Python tracker _

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- priority: normal -> high ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.5 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- stage: -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file41518/build_set2.diff ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailin

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Hamish Campbell added the comment: > Do you have a use case where `x == y`/`hash(x) == hash(y)` does not mean that > `x` and `y` should be interchangeable? True and 1 are 100% interchangeable, > minus their str() output, and my example is very unlikely to ever appear in > actual code. No I do

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Changes by Raymond Hettinger : -- keywords: +patch Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file41514/build_set.diff ___ Python tracker ___

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: The culprit is the BUILD_SET opcode in Python/ceval.c which unnecessarily loops backwards (it looks like it was copied from the BUILD_TUPLE opcode). -- assignee: docs@python -> rhettinger nosy: +rhettinger ___ Pyt

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Emanuel Barry added the comment: Set displays appear to be the culprit here: >>> class A: ... count = 0 ... def __init__(self): ... self.cnt = self.count ... type(self).count += 1 ... def __eq__(self, other): ... return type(self) is type(other) ... def __hash__(self): ...

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Hamish Campbell added the comment: Note also the differences here: >>> print(set([True, 1])) {True} >>> print({True, 1}) {1} >>> print({x for x in [True, 1]}) {True} -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

Hamish Campbell added the comment: Apologies, that first line should read "It looks like the documentation of set displays do not match behaviour in some cases". -- ___ Python tracker _

[issue26020] set_display evaluation order doesn't match documented behaviour

New submission from Hamish Campbell: It looks like the behaviour of set displays do not match behaviour in some cases. The documentation states: "A set display yields a new mutable set object, the contents being specified by either a sequence of expressions or a comprehension. When a comma-sep