Message126332
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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-01-15 14:51:01 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, mark.dickinson, eli.bendersky, docs@python |
2011-01-15 14:51:01 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1295103061.07.0.621738264434.issue10912@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2011-01-15 14:50:53 | ncoghlan | link | issue10912 messages |
2011-01-15 14:50:53 | ncoghlan | create | |
|