Albert van der Horst writes: > Chris Angelico wrote: > > If there's no clear maximum, it can't do any better than > > that. It's still returning something for which there is no > > greater. > > I agree that it is a useful function and that it is doing > the right thing. What is wrong is the name. > I refer to the fact that it is not returning the maximum. > It returns the iterator value that leads to the maximum. > A function that doesn't return a maximum shouldn't be called > maximum.
It's called max. A maximal element need not be unique even in mathematics: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_element>. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
