<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > I agree with Alex that checking for this type of inequality is not a > trivial programming exercise. It requires (at least) a parallel
I'm not asking for ANY programming: I'm asking for a *straightforward operational definition*. If the concept which you hanker after is NOT subject to a straightforward operational definition, then I would rule out that said concept could POSSIBLY be "natural". > Alternatively, it might make sense to disallow == for containers by > raising a TypeError although that would eliminate a largely useful > feature. This may be the best example I've ever seen of Emerson's well-known quote about foolish consistency -- except that I don't think this behavior would be "consistent" (either wisely or foolishly) with anything except a vague handwaving set of constraints whose "naturalness" (assuming it's unfeasible to provide a good and straightforward operational definition) is out of the question. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
