Any list larger than any number by way of dimensions?
__peter__ at web.de
Mon Jun 28 18:32:08 CEST 2004
Peter Knoerrich wrote:
> $ ./python
> Python 2.3.4 (#1, Jun 28 2004, 17:36:42)
> [GCC 3.3.2 20031218 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.2-r5, propolice-3.3-7)] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>>>  > 1e99999
> Now in a way that makes a lot of sense, since one could fold up any
> one-dimensional space just tightly enough for it to fit into any
> two-dimensional space (even very small ones).
> Still, to use a british expression, where's the beef? Is there some
> subtle philosophical point to this like the distinction between split and
> join? I hesitate to report this as a bug, even though it could have made
> my day pretty miserable if that buffersize above had been short.
I think this is one of Python's very few _design_ bugs. From a recent
python-dev thread on "Comparing heterogeneous types":
[Aahz] "Guido has all-but-decreed that the
future of comparisons is that TypeError will be raised for all operators
other than == and <> for types that have no appropriate relationship
Google might find you more.
The "all-but" worries me a bit, though.
More information about the Python-list