On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 09:07:14 UTC, Ian wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Paddy <paddyxxx-at-xmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Ian. The original author states "...and it is sure that the given > > inputs will give an output, i.e., the inputs will always be valid.", which > > could be taken as meaning that all inputs are sufficient, well formed, and > > contain all relations as their first example does. > > Well, I brought it up because the start of that sentence is "There can > be multiple inequalities as answer but I need any one which is > correct...". The only way there would be more than one correct answer > would be if the inputs were only partially ordered. I take the second > part of the sentence as meaning only that the input can be safely > assumed to be consistent. > > > Yes, I knew that there are cases where a cmp function is more natural than > > key; the idea is to squirrel out a few. We have already made the, (well > > reasoned in my opinion), decision to go down the key= route in Python 3. I > > also like to track where my algorithms might originally map to cmp=. (It is > > not often). > > Basically any time you have a comparison that isn't easily expressed > by mapping the values to some bunch of ordered objects.
Yep. I want to track when this comes up for me and others during their normal programming rather than in examples made to highlight the issue. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
