Numeric don't compare arrays correctly
tim.hochberg at ieee.org
Sat Jun 7 16:19:56 CEST 2003
Erik Max Francis wrote:
> Tim Hochberg wrote:
>>An ill considered thought: I wonder if it would be feasible to change
>>the definition of "a < b < c" from:
>> (a < b) and (b < c)
>> (a < b) & (b < c)
> How would this help?
Bitwise & is overridable while 'and' is not. As a result, in Numeric
where this thread started, "a < b < c" produces results that are
technically right, but practically useless. From the original post by
>>> print 2.<a<4.
[1 1 1 0 0] # 1.1 is not between 2 and 4 !!
>>> print (a>2.)and(a<4.)
[1 1 1 0 0]
>>> print (a>2.)*(a<4.)
[0 1 1 0 0] # this is good!
(2.>a) & (a<4.), as proposed above, also works out correctly. In Numeric
the proposed scheme would work nicely out of the box. I'm not familiar
with what other (ab)users of rich comparisons are doing, but this would
at least make it feasible to put together a consistent set of rich
>>Since "x and y" and "x & y" are equivalent when x, y are in (0,1), ...
> There's an obvious difference, which is that `and' does short circuiting
> whereas & does not.
Good point. Another beautiful idea ruined by an ugly fact. That makes
the backwards compatibility issues considerably worse. And,
unfortunately, non short circuiting behaviour is probably required to
get the chained comparisons in Numeric and similar abusers of rich
comparisons to work correctly.
back to logical_and(a < b, b < c).
More information about the Python-list