On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Paddy <paddy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 11 November 2014 09:07:14 UTC, Ian wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Paddy <paddyxxx-at-xmail.com> wrote: >> > Thanks Ian. The original author states "...and it is sure that the given >> > inputs will give an output, i.e., the inputs will always be valid.", which >> > could be taken as meaning that all inputs are sufficient, well formed, and >> > contain all relations as their first example does. >> >> Well, I brought it up because the start of that sentence is "There can >> be multiple inequalities as answer but I need any one which is >> correct...". The only way there would be more than one correct answer >> would be if the inputs were only partially ordered. I take the second >> part of the sentence as meaning only that the input can be safely >> assumed to be consistent. >> >> > Yes, I knew that there are cases where a cmp function is more natural than >> > key; the idea is to squirrel out a few. We have already made the, (well >> > reasoned in my opinion), decision to go down the key= route in Python 3. I >> > also like to track where my algorithms might originally map to cmp=. (It >> > is not often). >> >> Basically any time you have a comparison that isn't easily expressed >> by mapping the values to some bunch of ordered objects. > > Yep. I want to track when this comes up for me and others during their normal > programming rather than in examples made to highlight the issue.
The example that I posted is one that I recall being brought up on this list in the past, but I don't have a link for you. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
