On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 01:00:48PM -0400, David Mertz wrote: > All the discussion following Steven's hypothetical .EQ. operator (yes, not > a possible spelling) just seems to drive home to me that what everyone > wants is simply a function. > > Many different notions of "equivalence for a particular purpose" have been > mentioned.
All of which are red herrings that are completely off-topic for this proposal. This proposal has nothing to do with: > case_insensitive_eq(a, b) > same_json_representation(a, b) > allclose(a, b) # A version of this is in NumPy > nan_ignoring_equality(a, b) and the only reason I deleted the "recursively equivalent" one is because I don't know what it's supposed to mean. This proposal is a narrow one: its the same as list or tuple equality, but duck-typed so that the container type doesn't matter. Do lists and tuples do case-insensitive comparisons? No. Then neither does this proposal. Do lists and tuples do JSON-repr comparisons? No. Then neither does this. Do lists and tuples do numeric "within some epsilon" isclose comparisons (e.g. APL fuzzy equality)? Or ignore NANs? No to both of those. Then neither does this proposal. -- Steven _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/NW3WAKBHFJC6SPJTQXQ3JX5PXAPNWJSE/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
