"Guido van Rossum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Unfortunately we couldn't redefine <=, <, >=, > to mean various >> > subset/superset tests without backwards incompatibilities (but does >> > anyone care? >> >> You mean those are defined *now*? I'm trying to figure out what the heck >> they >> could even mean. . . > > They're intended to provide stable though arbitrary ordering for > dicts. Admittedly not very useful (and a pain to implement!). In py3k > we won't require everybody to support <= etc.; while so far I've been > saying this about different types, it makes sense that even within one > type one might not want to define them.
If you don't let complex numbers be ordered, even lexicographically, then I see even less need to arbitrarily order dicts. If anyone really does use the current feature, and really needs it, an ordict with the old behavior for <, etc, could be added to collections. I like the idea of at least partially unifying the set and dict interfaces. Terry Jan Reedy _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
