RichCompare and RichCompareBool

[Aaron Brady]

On Mar 3, 12:42 am, Aaron Brady <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 9:24 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> > > En Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:54:09 -0200, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu>
> > > escribió:
>
> > >> Aaron Brady wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>  In the source for 3.0.1, PyObject_RichCompareBool seems to perform an
> > >>> extra check on identity that PyObjecct_RichCompare does not perform.
>
> > >> To me, the existence of two functions suggests that they are
> > >> *intended* to act differently.
>
> > > Mmm, but then the documentation is misleading and incomplete, at least.
> > > PyObject_RichCompareBool is not equivalent of "o1 op o2" as it claims,
> > > and both functions differ in more than return value (the only documented
> > > difference).
>
> > Could be.  I believe the C API docs have had must less testing by naive
> > users than the Python docs, and even those are not quite perfect yet.
>
> RichCompareBool is used 62 times in the source, minus declaration.
> It's partly (by eye) used to test identity with Py_EQ.  Then there
> should be a different function, more like "IdCompareBool".
>
> Duncan stated:
>
> > Without looking at the code it sounds like a bug: identity doesn't always
> > imply equality.
>
> In such cases, should "a in [a]" be True or False?
>
> Abstract example:
>
> >>> class A:
>
> ...     def __eq__( self, oth ):
> ...         if self is oth:
> ...             return False
> ...         return object.__eq__( self, oth )
> ...>>> a= A()
> >>> a==a
> False
> >>> [a]==[a]
>
> True
>
> 'list' does seem to break its contract.
...

Hi.  Just bringing it up again.  I feel the docs should mention it at
least, and there should possibly be a separate function.