Skip to content

Conversation

@tseaver
Copy link
Member

@tseaver tseaver commented May 23, 2017

No description provided.

@tseaver tseaver requested a review from icemac May 23, 2017 16:49
@loechel
Copy link
Member

loechel commented May 23, 2017

That is something I would like to see for a next version 4.1 or 5.0 but not 4.0 as this should help making the transition to Python 3.

@tseaver
Copy link
Member Author

tseaver commented May 23, 2017

Nobody who cares about Py3k compatibility will object to dropping use of the sets module: it doesn't exist in Py3k. Furthermore, it has been pointless since the set builtin was added in, and has been deprecated since Python 2.6.

Fix flake8 problems
@loechel
Copy link
Member

loechel commented May 23, 2017

I am fine with it, when it makes no sense to keep it.

I fixed the flake8 error so that the test is green again.

@tseaver or @icemac go a head an merge it if you think it is the right way to go now.

@tseaver
Copy link
Member Author

tseaver commented May 23, 2017

I don't know how a PR which only deletes lines can decrease coverage.

@tseaver tseaver merged commit 97ab42b into master May 23, 2017
@tseaver tseaver deleted the drop-sets-module-support branch May 23, 2017 22:56
@icemac
Copy link
Member

icemac commented May 24, 2017

@tseaver As you deleted lines which were covered by the tests the amount of tested code has decreased. Thus the coverage decreased, too.

Copy link
Member

@icemac icemac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am okay with this change.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants