-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 92
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
additional difference algorithm suggeestion #44
Labels
Milestone
Comments
jirikuncar
added a commit
to jirikuncar/dictdiffer
that referenced
this issue
Dec 7, 2014
* Adds support for diffing and patching of sets. (addresses inveniosoftware#44) Signed-off-by: Jiri Kuncar <jiri.kuncar@cern.ch>
Yeah, that seems to works really nicely. Good idea! Thanks |
+1 |
jirikuncar
added a commit
to jirikuncar/dictdiffer
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2014
* Adds support for diffing and patching of sets. (addresses inveniosoftware#44) Signed-off-by: Jiri Kuncar <jiri.kuncar@cern.ch>
Merged
jirikuncar
added a commit
to jirikuncar/dictdiffer
that referenced
this issue
Dec 8, 2014
* Adds support for diffing and patching of sets. (addresses inveniosoftware#44) Signed-off-by: Jiri Kuncar <jiri.kuncar@cern.ch>
jirikuncar
added a commit
to jirikuncar/dictdiffer
that referenced
this issue
Dec 9, 2014
* Adds support for diffing and patching of sets. (addresses inveniosoftware#44) Signed-off-by: Jiri Kuncar <jiri.kuncar@cern.ch>
Closing the issue now that PR #45 was merged. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi,
This dictdiffer library rocks! Thank you all.
This might be another nice difference algorithm per #42. Basically similar to the symmetric difference operator from python's Set data structure.
Setup:
Current output:
Proposed output:
So (,0) would represent the addition of 0 to the second dict and that everything in the first dict is contained in the second. I think this would be like
Or at least some way of getting at the fact that the value 0 was added to the second list and not the value 3.
Cheers!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: