sets anomaly

[Ned Batchelder]

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 10:18:32 AM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Trying to write some code using sets (well frozen sets)
> And was hit by this anomaly
> 
> This is the behavior of lists I analogously expect in sets:
> 
> >>> []
> []
> >>> [[]]
> [[]]
> >>> 
> 
> ie the empty list and the list of the empty list are different things
> 
> However
> (with
> f= frozenset
> )
> 
> >>> f()
> frozenset()
> >>> f([])
> frozenset()
> >>> f(f([]))
> frozenset()
> >>> 

The difference is more about the difference between the behavior of a
callable constructor, and a list literal.  Lists will behave the same
as frozenset if you use list():

    >>> list()
    []
    >>> list(list())
    []
    >>> list(list(list()))
    []

This is because the constructors can take a sequence, and use those
elements as the new contents.  List literals don't work that way.


> Spent a good ½ hour finding out this strangeness
> And then some figuring out how to get an empty set into a set
> This is the best I get:
> >>> f([f([])])
> frozenset({frozenset()})

That is the way I would have done it also. Or:

    >>> s = set()
    >>> s.add(frozenset())
    >>> frozenset(s)
    frozenset([frozenset([])])

Notice the repr output of the result shows how to make it! :)

--Ned.