Some more input regarding comparisons. Found this in the Python 3
changelog:
http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html#ordering-comparisons
Essentially they've decided to tighten the rules, making all the
examples I listed above throw a: TypeError: unorderable types:
exception.
Regards
// Fredrik Blomqvist
On Oct 28, 2:42 pm, Fredrik fblomqv...@gmail.com wrote:
similarly you also have:
# compare(0, '')
== 0
# compare(0, [])
== 0
.. But, equivalence is one thing, defining meaningful ordering is
more difficult.
A quick take in Python gives this table (didn't check the standard):
-- '' == []
False
'' []
False
'' []
True
0 ''
True
0 ''
False
0 []
True
0 []
False
At least the above defines an ordering, where JavaScript returns false
for any ordering of 0, [] and '' for example.
More thoughts?
Regards
// Fredrik
On Oct 28, 7:00 am, Per Cederberg p...@percederberg.net wrote:
While writing some MochiKit tests, I stumbled upon the following:
# compare(, [])
== 0
# == []
== true
Seems like the JavaScript type coercion is used inside compare():
compare: function (a, b) {
if (a == b) {
return 0;
}
...
But perhaps that was just a mistake? It seems to be at odds with the
idea of a safe compare function... If nobody is terribly dependent
on this I'll fix it for 1.5. But please verify this if you are
extensive users of compare().
Cheers,
/Per
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
MochiKit group.
To post to this group, send email to mochi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
mochikit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/mochikit?hl=en.
