Re:The 2,500 year old history of why Python’s all([]) return...
by lmm on Thursday March 19, 2020 @06:38AM
(#22626210)
> Uh, it totally makes sense, I just gave you a string example too. The comparator doesn't have to distinguish unequal elements, and a min (and argmin and sort et al.) is perfectly fine and sensible with such a comparator.
Sorting is not the same thing as taking the minimum.
> Do you code in Python at all? Do you find the fact that 1.0 and 1 are both simultaneously equal in some sense and unequal in another sense to be just complete nonsense? Do you expect min(1.0, 1) to error...?
Yes, and this is a large reason why I prefer to work in languages that let me manage such distinctions more carefully.
Sorting is not the same thing as taking the minimum.
> Do you code in Python at all? Do you find the fact that 1.0 and 1 are both simultaneously equal in some sense and unequal in another sense to be just complete nonsense? Do you expect min(1.0, 1) to error...?
Yes, and this is a large reason why I prefer to work in languages that let me manage such distinctions more carefully.