Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > 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]
What's interesting is the practical consequence that: x, y = min(x, y), max(x, y) cannot give you twice the same object. Of course, there are subtle implications of how it will be implemented (especially with objects which have a partial order relationship to each other). Since max() is supposed to work on any iterator, we probably don't want to build an intermediate sequence and fetch elements in reverse order; instead perhaps use (not Py_LT) instead of Py_GT. ---------- nosy: +pitrou versions: +Python 3.2 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9802> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
