On Oct 13, 7:25 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <aa6eafa0-7075-424c-abef-79cbc0dd3...@w19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Steve > > Howell wrote: > > I guess a lot depends on how you define "symmetry." Is your > > definition of "symmetry" equivalent to your definition of > > "orthogonality"? > > No idea. It’s just that the example being discussed in this thread seemed to > come under the old term “orthogonality”, so I wondered why a different term > was being used. > > So far no-one has come up with a good excuse for using a different term.
Ask the authors of PEP 234 why they use the term symmetry: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0234/ That was the original context of my comment. The term "symmetry" gets used a couple times in that PEP, and I think we're in violent agreement that the concept of "symmetry" is wishy-washy at best. Here is just one example from the PEP: The symmetry between "if x in y" and "for x in y" suggests that it should iterate over keys. This symmetry has been observed by many independently and has even been used to "explain" one using the other. I think I'm just making the same observation as you coming from a different angle. Why talk about "symmetry" when it's such a tricky balance? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
