John Henry wrote: > John, > > Yes, there are several scenerios. > > a) Comparing keys only. > > That's been answered (although I haven't gotten it to work under 2.3 > yet)
(1) What's the problem with getting it to work under 2.3? (2) Why not upgrade? > > b) Comparing records. You haven't got that far yet. The next problem is actually comparing two *collections* of records, and you need to decide whether for equality purposes the collections should be treated as an unordered list, an ordered list, a set, or something else. Then you need to consider how equality of records is to be defined e.g. case sensitive or not. > > Now it gets more fun - as you pointed out. I was assuming that there > is no short cut here. If the key exists on both set, and if I wish to > know if the records are the same, I would have to do record by record > comparsion. However, since there are only a handful of records per > key, this wouldn't be so bad. Maybe I just overload the compare > operator or something. > IMHO, "something" would be better than "overload the compare operator". In any case, you need to DEFINE what you mean by equality of a collection of records, *then* implement it. "only a handful":. Naturally 0 and 1 are special, but otherwise the number of records in the bag shoudn't really be a factor in your implementation. HTH, John -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
