Incomparable abominations

[Jp Calderone]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 11:58:31PM -0500, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
> |> the relation "1j < 2j" is self-evident and natural.
> 
> "John Roth" <johnroth at ameritech.net> wrote previously:
> |That is, however, a border case. Is 1+2j < 2+1j true or false?
> 
> True that the latter case has no natural order.  But the former case
> does.  Likewise, I find this order natural:
> 
>     "A" < "B"
> 
> And this order is completely arbitrary:
> 
>     u"A" < unicodedata.lookup('HEBREW LETTER ALEF')
> 
> In what sense is the Roman alphabet "less than" the Hebrew alphabet?...

  In the sense (of which I am certain you are aware) that letters in the
Roman alphabet have been assigned numeric values which are less than those
assigned to letters in the Hebrew alphabet; so dictates conventional
programming practices.

  In the same way, conventional mathematical practices dictate that complex
numbers not be compared with < and >.

  Is it unfortunate that following two separate conventions sometimes leads
to apparently (superficial) conflicting ideas and behaviors?  Yes.

  Is it inexplicable to people without a PhD in computer science?  No.
  
  Does it prevent us from writing useful programs?  No.

  Is it an unsurmountable flaw in the language?  No.

> [snip]
> 
> To paraphrase the Timbot, Python seems to be aiming for a "principle of
> maximum surprise!"

  Just the opposite, imho.

  Jp

-- 
Lowery's Law:
        If it jams -- force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.
-- 
 up 4 days, 1:59, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00