On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:47 PM Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> 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) > I think you are trying very hard to miss the point. Yes... all of those functions that express a kind of equivalence are different from the OP proposal. But ALL OF THEM have just as much claim to being called equivalence as the proposal does. If we could only extend the '==' operator to include one other comparison, I would not choose the OP's suggestion over those others. Similarly, if '===' or '.EQ.' could only have one meaning, the OP proposal would not be what I would most want. Which is NOT, of course, to say that I don't think `containers_with_same_contents()` isn't a reasonable function. But it's just that, a function. -- The dead increasingly dominate and strangle both the living and the not-yet born. Vampiric capital and undead corporate persons abuse the lives and control the thoughts of homo faber. Ideas, once born, become abortifacients against new conceptions.
_______________________________________________ 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/JOW2AKKRCBXTH7CGVL556RVWJJXODXGY/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
