[issue27495] Pretty printing sorting for set and frozenset instances

[Danilo J. S. Bellini]

Danilo J. S. Bellini added the comment:

Wouldn't a fix for all standard collections be a fix for Python 3.5+, therefore another issue? http://bugs.python.org/issue23870

This issue is about sets/frozensets Python 3.2+, and I'm pretty sure it's backwards compatible, as I don't think any code running on Python 3.2.6 would depend on pprint randomness (how could?). Also, a multiline pprint would sort (tested with Python 3.2.6):

>>> pprint.pprint(set(string.digits), width=7)
{'0',
 '1',
 '2',
 '3',
 '4',
 '5',
 '6',
 '7',
 '8',
 '9'}

I see no reason to see a fix to this inconsistent behavior (sorting on multiline, not sorting on single line) as an enhancement just for a new Python 3.6 version. Besides being backwards compatible, the test_pprint was really verifying the order on set(range(n)) for small n, something that is already sorted by set.__repr__ but appears in test_pprint, which make me think it was intended as a pretty printer test, not as a set.__repr__ test.

----------

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27495>
_______________________________________