On 4/27/2011 5:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
(2) slow containers down by guaranteeing that they will use __eq__;
(but how much will it actually hurt performance for real-world cases?
and this will have the side-effect that non-reflexivity will propagate
to containers)
I think it is perfectly reasonable that containers containing items with
non-reflexive equality should sometimes have non-reflexive equality also
(depends on the placement of the item in the container, and the values
of other items, whether the non-reflexive equality of an internal item
will actually affect the equality of the container in practice).
I quoted the docs for tuple and list comparisons in a different part of
this thread, and for those types, the docs are very clear that the items
must compare equal for the lists or tuples to compare equal. For other
built-in types, the docs are less clear:
*
Mappings (dictionaries) compare equal if and only if they have the
same (key, value) pairs. Order comparisons ('<', '<=', '>=', '>')
raise TypeError
<http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/exceptions.html#TypeError>.
So we can immediately conclude that mappings do not provide an ordering
for sorts. But, the language "same (key, value)" pairs implies identity
comparisons, rather than equality comparisons. But in practice,
equality is used sometimes, and identity sometimes:
>>> nan = float('NaN')
>>> d1 = dict( a=1, nan=2 )
>>> d2 = dict( a=1, nan=2.0 )
>>> d1 == d2
True
>>> 2 is 2.0
False
"nan" and "nan" is being compared using identity, 2 and 2.0 by
equality. While that may be clear to those of you that know the
implementation (and even have described it somewhat in this thread), it
is certainly not clear in the docs. And I think it should read much
more like lists and tuples... "if all the (key, value) pairs, considered
as tuples, are equal".
*
Sets and frozensets define comparison operators to mean subset and
superset tests. Those relations do not define total orderings (the
two sets {1,2} and {2,3} are not equal, nor subsets of one
another, nor supersets of one another). Accordingly, sets are not
appropriate arguments for functions which depend on total
ordering. For example, min()
<http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/functions.html#min>, max()
<http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/functions.html#max>, and
sorted()
<http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/functions.html#sorted>
produce undefined results given a list of sets as inputs.
This clearly talks about sets and subsets, but it doesn't define those
concepts well in this section. It should refer to where it that concept
is defined, perhaps. The intuitive definition of "subset" to me is if,
for every item in set A, if an equal item is found in set B, then set A
is a subset of set B. That's what I learned back in math classes.
Since NaN is not equal to NaN, however, I would not expect a set
containing NaN to compare equal to any other set.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
