Message336639
| Author | eric.smith |
|---|---|
| Recipients | brandtbucher, eric.smith, mark.dickinson, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date | 2019-02-26.10:24:03 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1551176643.46.0.663210669549.issue36117@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
-1. We don't want to have objects that are orderable depending on their values. I can't think of anywhere else we do this. It would be very easy to have a complex == 42+0.0000001j, after some calculation. This near-zero imaginary part would prevent it from being orderable, while if a similar calculation produced exactly 42+0j, then that instance would be orderable. An application relying on this would be a nightmare to write comprehensive tests for. Whether something is orderable or not should depend solely on its type, not its value. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2019-02-26 10:24:03 | eric.smith | set | recipients: + eric.smith, mark.dickinson, serhiy.storchaka, brandtbucher |
| 2019-02-26 10:24:03 | eric.smith | set | messageid: <1551176643.46.0.663210669549.issue36117@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| 2019-02-26 10:24:03 | eric.smith | link | issue36117 messages |
| 2019-02-26 10:24:03 | eric.smith | create | |