Message115898
Thanks for the patch!
Comments:
(1) Shouldn't 'reverse=True' be omitted in the second doc addition?
(2) I'd also suggest adding a brief comment about what this means for distinct, but equal, objects; otherwise it's not really obvious what the point of the doc addition is.
(3) As a matter of clarity, perhaps replace "this is" with "max(iterable, key=key) is", and similarly for min.
As an aside, I still like Jeffrey Yasskin's suggestion on the python-dev mailing list that the sensible definition for max would maintain the invariant that max(iterable) be equivalent to sorted(iterable)[-1]; see Alexander Stepanov's writings in e.g., http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~musser/gsd/notes-on-programming-2006-10-13.pdf for more. But that's (a) another issue, and (b) perhaps not a significant enough benefit to be worth changing Python's semantics for. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2010-09-08 20:52:10 | mark.dickinson | set | recipients:
+ mark.dickinson, rhettinger, mattheww, jyasskin, docs@python |
2010-09-08 20:52:10 | mark.dickinson | set | messageid: <1283979130.47.0.636947330453.issue9802@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2010-09-08 20:52:07 | mark.dickinson | link | issue9802 messages |
2010-09-08 20:52:07 | mark.dickinson | create | |
|