[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 326 now online
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Wed Jan 7 01:06:04 EST 2004
> > I just got a comment from another user suggesting modifying the
> > min/max.__cmp__ so that they are the actual minimum and maximum.
> > An interesting approach, which makes some sense to me.
Not to me. Random reuses like this would make Python into a
> This was my suggestion. I am for this PEP and am willing to write the
> reference implementation for the new min and max builtins if there's
> enough interest.
Not from me -- don't waste your time.
> I have, like some others here, used my own One True Large Object. I
> think the best reason to have One True Large Object is because you
> can't really compare two implementations of the One True Large Object
> and expect to get a meaningful result out of it.
> For the record, my use case had to do with a giant sorted list of
> tuples and the bisect module. The first element of a tuple was a
> timestamp, the rest of the tuple isn't worth explaining but I never
> wanted to compare against it. The "database" had two primary
> operations, inserting records *after* a timestamp, and finding every
> record between two timestamps. Let's take a look:
Your example (snipped here) seems to ask for a different kind of data
structure, rather than an object larger than everything else.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
More information about the Python-Dev