On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: >> C, SQL, REXX, and many other languages. > > So, languages without strong typing then. In that case, I revise my > statement: I know of no programming language with strong typing that > would give a newcomer to Python the above expectation.
OCaml is a language with absurdly strong typing, where a < b < c is equivalent to (a < b) < c. Obviously, this only works if c is a boolean, and if a and b are the same type. Otherwise it is a type error. Also, you claimed earlier that the notion of associative "<" is not founded in mathematical notation. It really depends on whose mathematical notation you use -- there's more than one, you know. For example, it's reasonable to expect < to be left- or right-associative in a system like Rick Hehner's Unified Algebra: http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/UA.pdf (although, he himself doesn't specify it as being one or the other, so by default one would assume 'a < b < c' to be nonsensical.) -- Devin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list