On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at gmail.com> wrote: > Decimal may actually have this backwards. The idea would be that > min(*lst) == sorted(lst)[0], and max(*lst) == sorted(lst)[-1]. Given a > stable sort, then, max of equivalent elements would return the last > element, and min the first. Yes, you're right; that would make more sense than the other way around. Mark
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