[issue32118] Docs: add note about sequence comparisons containing non-orderable elements
New submission from Dubslow <bunslow@gmail.com>: In sequence comparisons, the enforcement of reflexivity of elements means that only non-identical elements are actually compared. The docs then note, with example, that non-reflexive elements thus always "compare" equal inside the sequence. This patch adds a second corollary, that non-orderable singletons (e.g. None) will also not break sequence comparison. Yes, the consequence is logically derivable from the statement "element identity is compared first, and element comparison is performed only for distinct elements", but the first example is given because "For non-reflexive elements, the result is different than for strict element comparison, and may be surprising", which also holds for the example I add here: different from strict element comparison, which may lead to otherwise surprising results (it sure was surprising to me when I expected a list with Nones to fail to compare, hence why I went trawling through the docs). In the manner of the first example, explicit is better than implicit, and (I believe) it will be helpful for readers to have this second consequence demonstrated. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation messages: 306780 nosy: Dubslow, docs@python priority: normal severity: normal status: open title: Docs: add note about sequence comparisons containing non-orderable elements versions: Python 3.7 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Change by Roundup Robot <devnull@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>: ---------- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +4451 stage: -> patch review _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Dubslow <bunslow@gmail.com> added the comment: The PR includes an unrelated one word grammar fix in the same file, that can be removed (by me or by someone else, IDC). This is possibly backportable but I wouldn't know, and leave such decisions for someone who do. ---------- type: -> enhancement _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> added the comment: The surprising thing is the behavior of NaN, which is *not equal* to itself. The statement about orderability says "...are ordered the same as their first unequal elements". This is explicit and unambiguous, there is no difference in this context between the number 1 and the singleton None, or the reflexivity enforced on NaN: all are equal to the corresponding element from the other sequence. The whole point of the paragraph is that *no order test is done until the first unequal element is encountered*. If we want to make this *more* explicit, I would suggest simply adding the following sentence after the first example in the original paragraph: "This means that reflexive elements that are otherwise unorderable (such as None and NaN) do not trigger a TypeError during a comparison." ---------- nosy: +r.david.murray _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> added the comment: This whole section has become a mess an is now more complex that the underlying code. Adding more caveats, special cases, and atypical examples will make it worse (rather like the U.S. tax code, another example of bad technical writing). I recommend the whole section be rewritten, extracting the most general rules and with examples that cover the general rules. There can then be brief separate paragraphs for language lawyers that cover what makes NaNs and None unusual (none of the comparison logic special cases these value -- their interesting behaviors are intrinsic to the object itself). ---------- nosy: +rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Terry J. Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> added the comment: (Raymond, I wrote this before reading your message, but I believe it provides what you requested. There is nothing special about None that is relevant to sequence comparison. Nans just happen to be the only built-in non-reflexive objects (that I know of, thank goodness).) This issue is about order comparisons *also* being defined on a single object in a sequence and therefore also possibly giving a different result. Title revised to be clearer and short enough to all be visible. Demonstration:
a = object() a == a, a != a # but a < a, a <= a, a >= a, a > a raise TypeError (True, False) la = [a] la == la, la != la, la < la, la <= la, la >= la, la > la (True, False, False, True, True, False)
Comparison of two sequences infers from identity all 6 rich comparison results on a single object in corresponding positions of the two sequences. This has nothing to do with the object being a singleton, other than a singleton being a single object. The enforcement of reflexivity and enforcement of consistent order on single objects are related, but the latter did not have to follow from the first. The presentation of order, in the patch, by reference to singletons and reflexivity, does not work. As I said in review, the example is too long and wrongly placed. I think using a generic object instead of None would also be better. I would like to rewrite the sequence comparison paragraphs after the first as something like the following. --- Sequences compare lexicographically using comparison of corresponding elements. The two objects are first compared for identity. If they are distinct, they are compared normally. If they are the same object, the self comparisons are inferred: '==', '>=', and '<=' are true, while '!=', '>', and '<' are false. By design, the inferred self comparisons for sequences sometimes give different results than would strict element comparison. Instances of an unordered class become ordered with respect to themselves instead of raising a TypeError.
a = object() a < a # By default, objects are not ordered Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: '>=' not supported between instances of 'object' and 'object' [a] < [a] False # Sequence comparison orders an object versus itself
Even anti-reflexive not-a-number values, for example, are treated as reflexive (meaning a == a always). <insert current nan example> --- This re-write describes sequence comparison in one paragraph, instead of putting the details in the middle of the next paragraph. The next paragraph describes the two possible consequences of inferring comparisons from identify: a result instead of a raise, and a different result. ---------- nosy: +terry.reedy title: Docs: add note about sequence comparisons containing non-orderable elements -> Doc for comparison of sequences with non-orderable elements _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Change by Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com>: ---------- assignee: docs@python -> rhettinger _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Dubslow <bunslow@gmail.com> added the comment: I like Terry's suggestion much better. I've closed my GitHub PR in favor of Terry's change. My only suggested tweak might be throwing in something like "(e.g." None)", perhaps e.g. "Instances of an unordered class (e.g. None) become ordered...", but even as is, is a major improvement over mine. Thanks. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Change by Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com>: ---------- pull_requests: +15141 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/15450 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> added the comment: New changeset edd21129dd304e178ca8be82ba689488dfb58276 by Raymond Hettinger in branch 'master': bpo-32118: Simplify docs for sequence comparison (GH-15450) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/edd21129dd304e178ca8be82ba689488dfb... ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Change by miss-islington <mariatta.wijaya+miss-islington@gmail.com>: ---------- pull_requests: +15158 pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/15466 _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> added the comment: New changeset 0ad85681de639792751ea53ec964d87d4ad45d71 by Raymond Hettinger (Miss Islington (bot)) in branch '3.8': bpo-32118: Simplify docs for sequence comparison (GH-15450) (#15466) https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/0ad85681de639792751ea53ec964d87d4ad... ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
Change by Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com>: ---------- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed _______________________________________ Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32118> _______________________________________
participants (6)
-
Dubslow -
miss-islington
-
R. David Murray
-
Raymond Hettinger
-
Roundup Robot
-
Terry J. Reedy