Some more input regarding comparisons. Found this in the Python 3
changelog:
http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html#ordering-comparisons
Essentially they've decided to tighten the rules, making all the
examples I listed above throw a: "TypeError: unorderable types:"
exception.
Regards
// Fredrik Blomqvist
On Oct 28, 2:42 pm, Fredrik <fblomqv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> similarly you also have:
>
> #> compare(0, '')
> ==> 0
>
> #> compare(0, [])
> ==> 0
>
> .. But, equivalence is one thing, defining "meaningful" ordering is
> more difficult.
>
> A quick take in Python gives this table (didn't check the standard):
> ---------->>> '' == []
> False
> >>> '' < []
> False
> >>> '' > []
> True
> >>> 0 < ''
> True
> >>> 0 > ''
> False
> >>> 0 < []
> True
> >>> 0 > []
>
> False
> ----------------
>
> At least the above defines an ordering, where JavaScript returns false
> for any ordering of 0, [] and ''" for example.
> More thoughts?
>
> Regards
> // Fredrik
>
> On Oct 28, 7:00 am, Per Cederberg <p...@percederberg.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > While writing some MochiKit tests, I stumbled upon the following:
>
> > #> compare("", [])
> > ==> 0
>
> > #> "" == []
> > ==> true
>
> > Seems like the JavaScript type coercion is used inside compare():
>
> > compare: function (a, b) {
> > if (a == b) {
> > return 0;
> > }
> > ...
>
> > But perhaps that was just a mistake? It seems to be at odds with the
> > idea of a "safe" compare function... If nobody is terribly dependent
> > on this I'll fix it for 1.5. But please verify this if you are
> > extensive users of compare().
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > /Per
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"MochiKit" group.
To post to this group, send email to mochi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
mochikit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en.
