sets.Set doesn't honour __eq__

[David Vaughan]

I was expecting the class sets.Set to act like an
unordered list with no two members equal. But, while
the following code prints True, the assertion fails.
from sets import Set

_base = str
class caseless_string(_base):
"""Strings, but equality ignores case."""
def __eq__(self, other):
return _base.__eq__(self.upper(), other.upper())

a = caseless_string('a')
A = caseless_string('A')
print A == a

from sets import Set
assert len(Set([a,A])) == 1
If looks like Set is using dict.__setitem__. In that
case, I reckon that the following is allowed to act in
a surprising fashion. Am I correct?
from sets import Set
foo = 3
bar = 3
if len(Set([foo,bar])) == 2:
print 'Boo!'
Is there an implementation of Set around which checks
for equality, honouring __eq__ ? Any help welcome.

David Vaughan

Need a new email address that people can remember
Check out the new EudoraMail at
http://www.eudoramail.com

[Matteo Dell'Amico]

David Vaughan wrote:

I was expecting the class sets.Set to act like an
unordered list with no two members equal. But, while
the following code prints True, the assertion fails.
from sets import Set

_base = str
class caseless_string(_base):
"""Strings, but equality ignores case."""
def __eq__(self, other):
return _base.__eq__(self.upper(), other.upper())
[...]

You just have to define __hash__ too:

class caseless_string(str):
"""Strings, but equality ignores case."""
def __eq__(self, other):
return str.__eq__(self.lower(), other.lower())
def __hash__(self):
return str.__hash__(self.lower())

works fine for me.

(btw, why do you do the _base trick?)

--
Ciao,
Matteo