Any list larger than any number by way of dimensions?
danb_83 at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 1 15:27:08 CEST 2004
pwmiller1 at adelphia.net (Paul Miller) wrote in message news:<2e363c08.0406301921.4c4681f9 at posting.google.com>...
> David Fraser <davidf at sjsoft.com> wrote in message news:<cbu24m$pv2$1 at ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> [re: None < number < list < string < tuple ]
> > >
> > > Which is consistent but wrong.
> > It's consistent but arbitrary. How can you say its wrong? It does what
> > its defined to do.
> It may be right, but it's probably not The Right Thing To Do(tm).
That's what I meant: It's "wrong" in that it's more often a source for
bugs than a useful behavior. Just like old-style division.
> main problem /I/ have with it is that complex numbers represent an
> exception (no pun intended) to this rule among all the built-in types
> in that they don't compare to anything.
That's not true. Complex numbers compare to strings, tuples, lists,
Exceptions, xranges, functions, and pretty much everything else.
Except numbers, of course.
More information about the Python-list