The previous comment completely misses the point.  Again, please see the discussion on c.l.python.  Not one of the participants expected sets to be "ordered". What was suprising to them was the order can *change* across sequential executions of an **unchanged** source.   This is of course *quite* different than expecting that sets are ordered; I am perplexed that anyone would conflate the two.  One cannot credibly argue that anyone who understands that sets are not ordered will not be surprised, since even sophisticated users were as a matter of fact surprised in the c.l.python discussion.  (Until it was explained by Peter of course.)  A natural conclusion is that the docs should offer better protection against such surprise, since we have concrete evidence that even sophisticated users can be surprised by this.

In sum, the previous comment conflates two distinct issues and so fails to address the reasons for the proposed docs patch.