# HG changeset patch # User Martin Panter # Date 1484975696 0 # Sat Jan 21 05:14:56 2017 +0000 # Branch 2.7 # Node ID 46e2ac463da7b0398b7e3163d21ff0b56300a10e # Parent 9b22d52a6d4b5030db6b1ae249ccae79befacf85 Issue #12067: Rewrite Comparisons section in the language reference Some of the details of comparing mixed types were incorrect or ambiguous. Added default behaviour and consistency suggestions for user-defined classes. Based on patch from Andy Maier. diff -r 9b22d52a6d4b Doc/reference/expressions.rst --- a/Doc/reference/expressions.rst Wed Jan 18 12:14:29 2017 +0000 +++ b/Doc/reference/expressions.rst Mon Jan 23 21:35:41 2017 +0000 @@ -1058,10 +1058,6 @@ .. _comparisons: -.. _is: -.. _is not: -.. _in: -.. _not in: Comparisons =========== @@ -1101,39 +1097,98 @@ preferred; where ``!=`` is mentioned below ``<>`` is also accepted. The ``<>`` spelling is considered obsolescent. +Value comparisons +----------------- + The operators ``<``, ``>``, ``==``, ``>=``, ``<=``, and ``!=`` compare the -values of two objects. The objects need not have the same type. If both are -numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise, objects of different -types *always* compare unequal, and are ordered consistently but arbitrarily. -You can control comparison behavior of objects of non-built-in types by defining -a ``__cmp__`` method or rich comparison methods like ``__gt__``, described in -section :ref:`specialnames`. +values of two objects. The objects do not need to have the same type. + +Chapter :ref:`objects` states that objects have a value (in addition to type +and identity). The value of an object is a rather abstract notion in Python: +For example, there is no canonical access method for an object's value. Also, +there is no requirement that the value of an object should be constructed in a +particular way, e.g. comprised of all its data attributes. Comparison operators +implement a particular notion of what the value of an object is. One can think +of them as defining the value of an object indirectly, by means of their +comparison implementation. + +Types can customize their comparison behavior by implementing +a :meth:`__cmp__` method or +:dfn:`rich comparison methods` like :meth:`__lt__`, described in +:ref:`customization`. + +The default behavior for equality comparison (``==`` and ``!=``) is based on +the identity of the objects. Hence, equality comparison of instances with the +same identity results in equality, and equality comparison of instances with +different identities results in inequality. A motivation for this default +behavior is the desire that all objects should be reflexive (i.e. ``x is y`` +implies ``x == y``). + +The default order comparison (``<``, ``>``, ``<=``, and ``>=``) gives a +consistent but arbitrary order. (This unusual definition of comparison was used to simplify the definition of operations like sorting and the :keyword:`in` and :keyword:`not in` operators. In the future, the comparison rules for objects of different types are likely to change.) -Comparison of objects of the same type depends on the type: +The behavior of the default equality comparison, that instances with different +identities are always unequal, may be in contrast to what types will need that +have a sensible definition of object value and value-based equality. Such +types will need to customize their comparison behavior, and in fact, a number +of built-in types have done that. -* Numbers are compared arithmetically. +The following list describes the comparison behavior of the most important +built-in types. -* Strings are compared lexicographically using the numeric equivalents (the - result of the built-in function :func:`ord`) of their characters. Unicode and - 8-bit strings are fully interoperable in this behavior. [#]_ +* Numbers of built-in numeric types (:ref:`typesnumeric`) and of the standard + library types :class:`fractions.Fraction` and :class:`decimal.Decimal` can be + compared within and across their types, with the restriction that complex + numbers do not support order comparison. Within the limits of the types + involved, they compare mathematically (algorithmically) correct without loss + of precision. -* Tuples and lists are compared lexicographically using comparison of - corresponding elements. This means that to compare equal, each element must - compare equal and the two sequences must be of the same type and have the same - length. +* Strings (instances of :class:`str` or :class:`unicode`) + compare lexicographically using the numeric equivalents (the + result of the built-in function :func:`ord`) of their characters. [#]_ + When comparing an 8-bit string and a Unicode string, the 8-bit string + is converted to Unicode. If the conversion fails, the strings + are considered unequal. - If not equal, the sequences are ordered the same as their first differing - elements. For example, ``cmp([1,2,x], [1,2,y])`` returns the same as - ``cmp(x,y)``. If the corresponding element does not exist, the shorter sequence - is ordered first (for example, ``[1,2] < [1,2,3]``). +* Instances of :class:`tuple` or :class:`list` can be compared only + within each of their types. Equality comparison across these types + results in unequality, and ordering comparison across these types + gives an arbitrary order. -* Mappings (dictionaries) compare equal if and only if their sorted (key, value) - lists compare equal. [#]_ Outcomes other than equality are resolved + These sequences compare lexicographically using comparison of corresponding + elements, whereby reflexivity of the elements is enforced. + + In enforcing reflexivity of elements, the comparison of collections assumes + that for a collection element ``x``, ``x == x`` is always true. Based on + that assumption, element identity is compared first, and element comparison + is performed only for distinct elements. This approach yields the same + result as a strict element comparison would, if the compared elements are + reflexive. For non-reflexive elements, the result is different than for + strict element comparison. + + Lexicographical comparison between built-in collections works as follows: + + - For two collections to compare equal, they must be of the same type, have + the same length, and each pair of corresponding elements must compare + equal (for example, ``[1,2] == (1,2)`` is false because the type is not the + same). + + - Collections are ordered the same as their + first unequal elements (for example, ``cmp([1,2,x], [1,2,y])`` returns the + same as ``cmp(x,y)``). If a corresponding element does not exist, the + shorter collection is ordered first (for example, ``[1,2] < [1,2,3]`` is + true). + +* Mappings (instances of :class:`dict`) compare equal if and only if they have + equal `(key, value)` pairs. Equality comparison of the keys and elements + enforces reflexivity. + + Outcomes other than equality are resolved consistently, but are not otherwise defined. [#]_ * Most other objects of built-in types compare unequal unless they are the same @@ -1141,8 +1196,59 @@ another one is made arbitrarily but consistently within one execution of a program. +User-defined classes that customize their comparison behavior should follow +some consistency rules, if possible: + +* Equality comparison should be reflexive. + In other words, identical objects should compare equal: + + ``x is y`` implies ``x == y`` + +* Comparison should be symmetric. + In other words, the following expressions should have the same result: + + ``x == y`` and ``y == x`` + + ``x != y`` and ``y != x`` + + ``x < y`` and ``y > x`` + + ``x <= y`` and ``y >= x`` + +* Comparison should be transitive. + The following (non-exhaustive) examples illustrate that: + + ``x > y and y > z`` implies ``x > z`` + + ``x < y and y <= z`` implies ``x < z`` + +* Inverse comparison should result in the boolean negation. + In other words, the following expressions should have the same result: + + ``x == y`` and ``not x != y`` + + ``x < y`` and ``not x >= y`` (for total ordering) + + ``x > y`` and ``not x <= y`` (for total ordering) + + The last two expressions apply to totally ordered collections (e.g. to + sequences, but not to sets or mappings). See also the + :func:`~functools.total_ordering` decorator. + +* The :func:`hash` result should be consistent with equality. + Objects that are equal should either have the same hash value, + or be marked as unhashable. + +Python does not enforce these consistency rules. + + +.. _in: +.. _not in: .. _membership-test-details: +Membership test operations +-------------------------- + The operators :keyword:`in` and :keyword:`not in` test for collection membership. ``x in s`` evaluates to true if *x* is a member of the collection *s*, and false otherwise. ``x not in s`` returns the negation of ``x in s``. @@ -1192,6 +1298,13 @@ operator: is not pair: identity; test + +.. _is: +.. _is not: + +Identity comparisons +-------------------- + The operators :keyword:`is` and :keyword:`is not` test for object identity: ``x is y`` is true if and only if *x* and *y* are the same object. ``x is not y`` yields the inverse truth value. [#]_ @@ -1418,15 +1531,24 @@ cases, Python returns the latter result, in order to preserve that ``divmod(x,y)[0] * y + x % y`` be very close to ``x``. -.. [#] While comparisons between unicode strings make sense at the byte - level, they may be counter-intuitive to users. For example, the - strings ``u"\u00C7"`` and ``u"\u0043\u0327"`` compare differently, - even though they both represent the same unicode character (LATIN - CAPITAL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA). To compare strings in a human - recognizable way, compare using :func:`unicodedata.normalize`. +.. [#] The Unicode standard distinguishes between :dfn:`code points` + (e.g. U+0041) and :dfn:`abstract characters` (e.g. "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A"). + While most abstract characters in Unicode are only represented using one + code point, there is a number of abstract characters that can in addition be + represented using a sequence of more than one code point. For example, the + abstract character "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA" can be represented + as a single :dfn:`precomposed character` at code position U+00C7, or as a + sequence of a :dfn:`base character` at code position U+0043 (LATIN CAPITAL + LETTER C), followed by a :dfn:`combining character` at code position U+0327 + (COMBINING CEDILLA). -.. [#] The implementation computes this efficiently, without constructing lists or - sorting. + The comparison operators on unicode strings compare at the level of Unicode code + points. This may be counter-intuitive to humans. For example, + ``u"\u00C7" == u"\u0043\u0327"`` is ``False``, even though both strings + represent the same abstract character "LATIN CAPITAL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA". + + To compare strings at the level of abstract characters (that is, in a way + intuitive to humans), use :func:`unicodedata.normalize`. .. [#] Earlier versions of Python used lexicographic comparison of the sorted (key, value) lists, but this was very expensive for the common case of comparing for diff -r 9b22d52a6d4b Misc/NEWS --- a/Misc/NEWS Wed Jan 18 12:14:29 2017 +0000 +++ b/Misc/NEWS Mon Jan 23 21:35:41 2017 +0000 @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ - Issue #28925: cPickle now correctly propagates errors when unpickle instances of old-style classes. +Documentation +------------- + +- Issue #12067: Rewrite Comparisons section in the Expressions chapter of the + language reference. Some of the details of comparing mixed types were + incorrect or ambiguous. Added default behaviour and consistency suggestions + for user-defined classes. Based on patch from Andy Maier. + Build -----