Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> added the comment: Yeah, to prevent perfectly reasonable "why" questions, it is probably worth providing a little extra justification as an addendum to your new note (which is already an improvement on the complete silence on the topic that existed before).
A possible addition: "... This assumption allows invariants such as "x in [x]" to be more easily guaranteed by the interpreter. If the assumption is not valid for a given use case, call PyObject_RichCompare() directly instead of using this function." For 3.3, it *may* make sense to provide a PyObject_RichCompareBoolEx() function which includes an additional "reflexive" parameter. Then the existing PyObject_RichCompareBool() semantics would just be the new function with the reflexive argument set to 1. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue10912> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
