Evan Driscoll wrote: > On 6/30/2012 23:45, Evan Driscoll wrote: >> You may also >> want to put Java in there as well, as < is effectively not commutative >> in that language. (I didn't try C#.) > > I guess you could actually put Lua and Ruby into the roughly same > category as Java too. > > But things get a little nastier in ==, as 'false == false == false' > evaluates as '(false == false) == false' to 'false' in Java and Lua. > (Ruby produces a syntax error for this, roughly the Haskell approach.) > > But we have Javascript:
s/Javascript/ECMAScript (implementations)/g > 1 < 1 < 2 > => true > false == false == false > => false Correct, because 0. 1 < 1 < 2 1. (1 < 1) < 2 2. false < 2 3. 0 < 2 4. true and 0. false == false == false 1. (false == false) == false 2. true == false 3. false See also the ECMAScript Language Specification, 5.1 Edition, section 11.9: <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-11.9> -- PointedEars Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
