homepage

Dictionary views documentation (e.g. http://docs.python.org/3.1/library/stdtypes.html#dictionary-view-objects) contains nothing about comparison (> >= < <= == !=) operations.

The 3.2a doc is unchanged (similarly lacking).
The situation is that view have all of the special method (operator methods) that frozen sets do but none of the named methods (.copy to .union). I think it would be helpful if the doc said so. Perhaps change
"Then these set operations are available ..."
to
"For set-like view, all of the syntax operations on sets (but none of the named methods, like set.copy,) are available ..."
I think
dictview < / <= / >= / > other:
 same as corresponding operation with two sets
might be sufficient, but list all four is ok too.

Hello,
here attached a patch for this bug. I hope the format "< / <= / == / != / >= / >" is clearly understandable as an alternative sequence of different operations.
Regards,
Sandro

We should probably just make reference to the collections.Set() abstract API instead of listing out all operations.

Hello Raymond,
thanks for the review. I've reworked the patch to refer to Collections.Set (but is there a way to make that reference a link to the description of Collections ABCs?) and so I've also removed all the examples, leaving only the one for '^' because I didn't see a Set operator to do that (but I'm happy to be proven wrong :)
Regards,
Sandro

The '^' corresponds to the __xor__ magic method.
snip from _abcoll.py:
 def __xor__(self, other):
 if not isinstance(other, Set):
 if not isinstance(other, Iterable):
 return NotImplemented
 other = self._from_iterable(other)
 return (self - other) | (other - self)

gaah, sorry about that. I've prepared another patch that removes the '^' part and adds an example about that.
About the reference to Collections.Set to be a link to the Collections page, do you think it's acceptable to define all the Collection ABCs as :class:`...` ? I looked at http://docs.python.org/documenting/markup.html but didn't find a specific markup for ABC, so I suppose 'class' is fine.
If you think it might worth the effort, I can mark those ABCs up as class, and scan the documentation for references to them and convert to link (if not already done automagically).

Applied in r85532. Thanks!