5 ms·

Python has is own 'wat' stuff, especially Python 2. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3270680/how-does-python-2-compare-string-and-int-why-do-lists-compare-a

Python has is own 'wat' stuff, especially Python 2. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3270680/how-does-python-2-compare-string-and-int-why-do-lists-compare-as-greater-than-n https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3270680/how-does-python-... "CPython implementation detail: Objects of different types except numbers are ordered by their type names; objects of the same types that don’t support proper comparison are ordered by their address."

pytester 7y ago
None of those surprising behaviors exist in python 3. I wouldn't say "100" < "2" really counts, since, alphabetically it makes sense (an equivalent would be "baa" < "c").
- staticassertion 7y ago
  Yes, Python2 was called out explicitly. Reference equality is definitely 'wat' shit IMO, though it's really mainstream too.
detaro 7y ago
> objects of different types always compare unequal, and are ordered consistently but arbitrarily Seems like a completely reasonable thing to do?
- staticassertion 7y ago
  > When you order two incompatible types where neither is numeric, they are ordered by the alphabetical order of their typenames: ????????
  - icebraining 7y ago
    That's just GIGO. There's simply no good way to order "two incompatible types where neither is numeric".
    - int_19h 7y ago
      There's always an option to just treat it as an error, especially given that 1+"2" already is.
  - detaro 7y ago
    That's entirely an implementation detail. The thing that matters for programmer experience is the specification of behavior: There's going to be an arbitrary order. You certainly can argue that you think it would be less surprising if trying this just failed, or that promising a stable order ties down implementations too much, but I don't think providing an order is that surprising. None (as far as I remember) of the common "wat" examples about JS are interpreter implementation details, but specified behavior. I'm mildly curious why CPython chooses to implement it this way, but if I had to guess: I'm assuming it is to provide a stable order between objects of different classes with the same hash() value. Hash-value being what I suspect is what the quoted answer misrepresents as "their address" (the address being in CPython the default fallback for objects that do not implement a hash() function), and being a good candidate to establish an arbitrary order.
    - staticassertion 7y ago
      Sorry, I'm not sure I understand at all the difference between this and the 'wat' stuff.

pytester 7y ago

None of those surprising behaviors exist in python 3. I wouldn't say "100" < "2" really counts, since, alphabetically it makes sense (an equivalent would be "baa" < "c").

staticassertion 7y ago
Yes, Python2 was called out explicitly. Reference equality is definitely 'wat' shit IMO, though it's really mainstream too.

detaro 7y ago

> objects of different types always compare unequal, and are ordered consistently but arbitrarily Seems like a completely reasonable thing to do?

staticassertion 7y ago
> When you order two incompatible types where neither is numeric, they are ordered by the alphabetical order of their typenames: ????????
- icebraining 7y ago
  That's just GIGO. There's simply no good way to order "two incompatible types where neither is numeric".
  - int_19h 7y ago
    There's always an option to just treat it as an error, especially given that 1+"2" already is.
- detaro 7y ago
  That's entirely an implementation detail. The thing that matters for programmer experience is the specification of behavior: There's going to be an arbitrary order. You certainly can argue that you think it would be less surprising if trying this just failed, or that promising a stable order ties down implementations too much, but I don't think providing an order is that surprising. None (as far as I remember) of the common "wat" examples about JS are interpreter implementation details, but specified behavior. I'm mildly curious why CPython chooses to implement it this way, but if I had to guess: I'm assuming it is to provide a stable order between objects of different classes with the same hash() value. Hash-value being what I suspect is what the quoted answer misrepresents as "their address" (the address being in CPython the default fallback for objects that do not implement a hash() function), and being a good candidate to establish an arbitrary order.
  - staticassertion 7y ago
    Sorry, I'm not sure I understand at all the difference between this and the 'wat' stuff.