Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Suggestion: make sequence and map interfaces more similar
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:57:51 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <lf58u10utao.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi>
References: <CABbU2U_DsSC=6d0HOwgGnzQZ0=r6U2sf_zOJP0U_w7_i0RrOKQ@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.92.1459101740.28225.python-list@python.org> <56f8836b$0$1602$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <56FA8C71.4050306@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAPTjJmqjgnDvzS7=_YRf+T78GYz7J26FzWGfwrygYLeq2E9FeA@mail.gmail.com> <CABbU2U9m-35UqK5KqRj7Y_oLdq_dgH3_EScLb4Sf3UNB4oCgmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmp1x-5=gEwBB=n-kt6YeVd6OiN_BGh5tNoL7UPYNqKb8w@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.176.1459309120.28225.python-list@python.org> <56fb677f$0$11121$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> <lf5twjoo2w8.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> <56fba7d3$0$1616$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <lf5h9fouumu.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> <mailman.191.1459334065.28225.python-list@python.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="305c68510616a2e7ac08bcd2ff1598bd"; logging-data="20905"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wU2PdEKKv34wBEBmxm4jyHE2AxaU+BMw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mP4bro+q43oPOLEkhLSrAbiCke8= sha1:OK66D9SfLbQFmZvjo9SafA9sdzY=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:106049

Antoon Pardon writes:

> Op 30-03-16 om 12:28 schreef Jussi Piitulainen:
>> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:12 pm, Jussi Piitulainen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Given a surjection (many-to-one mapping)
>>>> No. And I doubt that Wikipedia says that.
>>> No to what? What are you disagreeing with?
>> Surjection does not mean many-to-one mapping. It means something else.
>
> I think this is my fault. I used "surjective function" wrongly in
> my first response.

Thanks. I missed that. Now I at least see why Steven may have brought
the concept up at all - it doesn't seem relevant, either.