Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

gh-96408: Document difference between set-like view and sets. #96439

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 31, 2022

Conversation

caseneuve
Copy link
Contributor

@caseneuve caseneuve commented Aug 30, 2022

While using set operators, set-like views accept any iterable as the other operand, unlike sets which only accept sets as the input.

Co-authored-by: Filip Łajszczak [email protected]

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 30, 2022

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.
CLA signed

@rhettinger rhettinger self-assigned this Aug 30, 2022
@rhettinger
Copy link
Contributor

rhettinger commented Aug 30, 2022

Please aim for a more minimalist edit. Ideally, just make a single sentence. The one you used above will suffice:

While using set operators, set-like views accept any iterable as the other operand, unlike sets which only accept sets as the input.

Also, next time, please put the tests and doc edits in the same PR. That makes it easier for us to review and to relate it back to issue where it was reported.

While using set operators, set-like views accept any iterable as the
other operand, unlike sets which only accept sets as the input.

Co-authored-by: Filip Łajszczak <[email protected]>
@caseneuve
Copy link
Contributor Author

@rhettinger Thanks! I'd opt to keep at least simple example, though, as examples are usually much easier to grasp. What do you think?

@rhettinger rhettinger merged commit 615537e into python:main Aug 31, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
docs Documentation in the Doc dir skip news
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants