> "Raymond" == Raymond Hettinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raymond> There's room in the world for alternate implementations of sets,
Raymond> each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
...
Raymond> Alternatve implementations will most likely start-off as
Raymond> third-party extension modul
>Guido> Hm... Without reading though all this, I expect that you'd be
>Guido> better off implementing this for yourself without attempting to pull
>Guido> the standard library sets into the picture (especially since sets.py
>Guido> is obsolete as of 2.4; set and frozenset are now built-in types).
> "Guido" == Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Guido> Hm... Without reading though all this, I expect that you'd be
Guido> better off implementing this for yourself without attempting to pull
Guido> the standard library sets into the picture (especially since sets.py
Guido> is obsol
A quick followup to my own posting:
I meant to say something about implementing __rand__() and pop(). I'd
either add another optional function argument to the constructor. It would
return a random element from the universe. Then for __rand__() and pop(),
you'd call until it (hopefully!) returned s
Hm... Without reading though all this, I expect that you'd be better
off implementing this for yourself without attempting to pull the
standard library sets into the picture (especially since sets.py is
obsolete as of 2.4; set and frozenset are now built-in types). You're
really after rather spec
