- Python Home
- About
- News
- Documentation
- Downloads
- Community
- Foundation
- Developer's Guide
- Issue Tracker
- Issues
- Summaries
- User
- Administration
- Help
Message391118
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | FFY00 |
|---|---|
| Recipients | FFY00, jefferyto, vstinner, yan12125 |
| Date | 2021-04-15.02:38:55 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1618454335.73.0.103137702804.issue37596@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Normal sets have the same issue, see bpo-43850. Would it be reasonable to make it so that sets are always created with the definition order? Looking at the set implementation, this seems perfectly possible. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2021-04-15 02:38:55 | FFY00 | set | recipients: + FFY00, vstinner, yan12125, jefferyto |
| 2021-04-15 02:38:55 | FFY00 | set | messageid: <1618454335.73.0.103137702804.issue37596@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2021-04-15 02:38:55 | FFY00 | link | issue37596 messages |
| 2021-04-15 02:38:55 | FFY00 | create | |

