Skip to content
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

Jump to bottom

Set.diff not documented properly #7868

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Oct 26, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Set.diff not documented properly #7868

vicuna opened this issue Oct 26, 2018 · 4 comments
Assignees
@gasche
Labels
bug documentation

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2018

Original bug ID: 7868
Reporter: skaller
Assigned to: @gasche
Status: resolved (set by @alainfrisch on 2018-10-26T13:30:36Z)
Resolution: fixed
Priority: normal
Severity: minor
Version: 4.07.1
Fixed in version: 4.08.0+dev/beta1/beta2
Category: documentation
Monitored by: @nojb

Bug description

The docs say Set.diff is "set difference".

As I pointed out years ago (why isn't this fixed!!) there are TWO operations called set difference. Both should be provided IMHO but at least the one that is provided should be properly specified.

Is this (a) the symmetric difference, equal to the union with the intersection removed, OR is it (b) the asymmetric difference, the elements of the first set with those of the second which are in it removed?

Steps to reproduce

Just read the docs.
@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2018

Comment author: @nojb

It is the second type ("asymmetric"). It hasn't been fixed because nobody has had the time or inclination to do it until now.

Would you like to propose a patch for the docs? You can even do it directly via github's interface, no need to make a branch, etc.

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2018

Comment author: @alainfrisch

I think that the "set difference" terminology is much more common than "asymmetric difference" (people referring to the "symmetric difference" always mention "symmetric" explicitly), and so there should be no risk of confusion. But I wouldn't be opposed to make things more explicit, if you or someone else want to propose a PR to improve the documentation.

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2018

Comment author: @gasche

I hadn't seen the comments (just the first report in my mailbox) so I proposed a PR:

#2119

@vicuna vicuna closed this as completed Oct 26, 2018
@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Oct 26, 2018

Comment author: skaller

Thanks!

@vicuna vicuna added the bug label Mar 20, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@gasche gasche

Labels
bug documentation
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@gasche @vicuna