In article <20040126164752.FBFB.JCARLSON at uci.edu>, Josiah Carlson <jcarlson at uci.edu> wrote: > A few people have suggested that the Max and Min objects be available as > the result of calls to max() and min(), this would solve the location > and name problem, and shouldn't break any old code. I would probably use min() and max() over someobscuremodule.UniversalLowerBoundObject and someobscuremodule.UniversalUpperBoundObject. I very much like the idea of PEP 326 (making proper universal min and max objects instead of encouraging those of us who know about it to use None or forcing us to make half-working versions ourselves), and I feel strongly that (if something like PEP 326 is accepted) min() and max() should return the Min and Max objects, as should min([]) and max([]). All that said, I don't think making the actual names of these objects be min() and max() would lead to the most readable code, and I'm still hopeful that more readable names can be found. Smallest and Largest, maybe? -- David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/ Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4