On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 07:47:54PM -0800, Andrew Barnert wrote:
So, rather than throwing out Stephen's carefully crafted and clearly worded rules and trying to come up with new ones, why not (for 3.4) just say that the order of coercions given values of 3 or more types is not documented and subject to change in the future (maybe even giving the examples from the initial email)?
I am happy to have an explicit disclaimer in the docs saying the result of calculations on mixed types are not guaranteed and may be subject to change. Then for 3.5 we can consider this more carefully.