On Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:19:07 +0000 Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 December 2017 at 11:41, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 10:48:18PM -0800, Carl Meyer wrote: > >> I think this is an interesting idea, and I don't believe that either > >> performance or "sortable vs comparable" are very relevant. > > > > Performance is always relevant -- while performance shouldn't be the > > sole deciding factor, it should be a factor. > > > > And since the entire use-case for this is sorting versus comparison > > operators, I'm having trouble understanding why you think that sorting > > versus comparison operators is irrelevant. > > I'm not completely clear on what the expectation is (in terms of > "sortable vs comparable") here.
It's quite clear if you read what Chris Barker posted originally (and which I agree with). We're talking about deriving comparison methods from a key function *while* making sorting potentially faster, because the costly reduction operation happens O(n) times instead of O(n log n) times. Steven OTOH seems to be inventing controversies just for the sake of posting a rant. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
