On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:12:10PM -0400, Dan Sommers wrote:
> On Sat, 9 May 2020 03:39:53 +1000
> Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Okay. Good.
>
> "Container," however, is a dangerous word in this context. According to
> https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html, lots of things are
> "conrtainers." Can they all be sequence-equal to each other?
All(?) sequences are containers, but not all containers are sequences,
so no.
> Of particular note might be sets, which don't have an inherent order. I
> am in no way proposing that sequence-equal be extended to cover sets,
> which by definition can't really be a sequence.
This is a very good question, thank you. I think that this ought to
exclude mappings and sets, at least initially. Better to err on the side
of caution than to overshoot by adding too much and then being stuck
with it.
The primary use-case here is for sequences. Comparisons between sets and
sequences are certainly possible, but one has to decide on a
case-by-case basis what you mean. For example, are these equal?
{1, 2} and (1, 1, 2)
I don't know and I don't want to guess, so leave it out.
--
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/FSDHL7WAFYCRGK2P5RYQNWCI63CALWKY/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
