Message75740
| Author |
mark.dickinson |
| Recipients |
barry, christian.heimes, gvanrossum, mark.dickinson, mikecurtis, rhettinger |
| Date |
2008年11月11日.13:58:01 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.1120109e-05 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1226411882.88.0.0922170056437.issue4296@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> Taking it out probably had something to do with NaNs, but this
> discussion needs to avoid getting lost in NaN paradoxes and instead
> focus on a notion of membership that is ALWAYS true given object
> identity. This is an essential pragmatism necessary for reasoning
about
> programs.
I agree wholeheartedly. NaN comparison weirdness isn't anywhere near
important enough to justify breaking these invariants. Though I imagine
that if 'x == x' started returning True for NaNs there might be some
complaints.
> P.S. Mark, those Py2.6 invariants are not still true in Py3.0:
You're right, of course. |
|