# Comparison of functions

Reinhold Birkenfeld reinhold-birkenfeld-nospam at wolke7.net
Sat Jul 30 15:32:45 CEST 2005

```Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:13:26 -0400, Peter Hansen wrote:
>
>> Beginners should not be comparing lambdas.
>>
>> Neither should you. ;-)
>
> Actually, yes I should, because I'm trying to make sense of the mess that
> is Python's handling of comparisons. At least two difference senses of
> comparisons is jammed into one, leading to such such warts as these:
>
>>>> L = []
>>>> L.sort()  # we can sort lists
>>>> L.append(1+1j)
>>>> L.sort()  # even if they include a complex number
>>>> L.append(1)
>>>> L.sort()  # but not any more
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
> TypeError: cannot compare complex numbers using <, <=, >, >=
>
> Um, I didn't ask to compare complex numbers using comparison operators. I
> asked to sort a list. And please don't tell me that that sorting is
> implemented with comparison operators. That just means that the
> implementation is confusing numeric ordering with sort order.

Sorting is implemented with comparison operators. How should it be otherwise?
Would you prefer a __sort__ method to specify sort order?

And how would you sort a list of complex numbers?

> Then there is this:
>
>>>> 1 > 0
> True

Okay.

>>>> 1+0j == 1
> True

Okay.

>>>> 1+0j == 1 > 0
> True

(1+0j == 1) yields True, which is comparable to 0.

>>>> 1+0j > 0
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
> TypeError: cannot compare complex numbers using <, <=, >, >=

But complex numbers are not greater or littler than others. You can't order them,
not on a one-dimensional scale.

> I applaud that Python has got rich comparisons for those who need them.
> But by confusing the question "which comes first in a sorted list?" with
> "which is larger?", you get all sorts of warts like being unable to sort
> lists with some objects, while being able to make meaningless
> comparisons like ''.join >= [].append.

That's a wart indeed, and intended to be removed for 3.0, if I'm informed correctly.

Reinhold

```