Message126332
| Author |
ncoghlan |
| Recipients |
docs@python, eli.bendersky, georg.brandl, mark.dickinson, ncoghlan, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2011年01月15日.14:50:53 |
| SpamBayes Score |
2.2139957e-11 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1295103061.07.0.621738264434.issue10912@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Yeah, to prevent perfectly reasonable "why" questions, it is probably worth providing a little extra justification as an addendum to your new note (which is already an improvement on the complete silence on the topic that existed before).
A possible addition:
"... This assumption allows invariants such as "x in [x]" to be more easily guaranteed by the interpreter. If the assumption is not valid for a given use case, call PyObject_RichCompare() directly instead of using this function."
For 3.3, it *may* make sense to provide a PyObject_RichCompareBoolEx() function which includes an additional "reflexive" parameter. Then the existing PyObject_RichCompareBool() semantics would just be the new function with the reflexive argument set to 1. |
|