Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #32338 > unrolled thread

Re: Re: Simple Python question for some

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Re: Simple Python question for some Evan Driscoll <driscoll@cs.wisc.edu> - 2012-10-28 23:30 -0500

#32338 — Re: Re: Simple Python question for some

On 10/28/2012 7:18 PM, Chris Rebert wrote:
> This is fixed in Python 3, where such nonsensical comparisons will
> instead raise TypeError.

It's worth pointing out that at least one kind of inequality comparison
which some people (e.g. me) would consider nonsensical is still allowed
in Python 3, which is between Boolean values and numbers:

  >>> True < 1
  False
  >>> False < 1
  True

which is probably because

  >>> True == 1
  True
  >>> False == 0
  True

Many people (probably most people, to be honest) disagree with me that
this is wrong, but regardless of whether you like it or not you need to
know what happens in such cases.


On 10/28/2012 7:18 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Which means that strings will ALWAYS be compared as strings, and
> numbers will ALWAYS be compared as numbers, and ne'er the twain shall
> conflict. I can trust Python to compare MD5 hashes reliably:
> 
>>>> "912128034267498495410681495015e0" !=00912128034267498495410681495015"
> True
> 
> Of course, I'm not pointing fingers at any other languages here, but
> this is a known security hole in one rather widely-used one.

If you are PerHaPs talking about the language I think you are, my
favorite fact about that is I'm that I think a while back I saw a bug
entry about something like that and they weren't sure how or even if it
should be fixed.

Evan

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web