Lines Matching refs:equality
20 'comparisons': '\nComparisons\n***********\n\nUnlike C, all comparison operations in Python have the same priority,\nwhich is lower than that of any arithmetic, shifting or bitwise\noperation. Also unlike C, expressions like ``a < b < c`` have the\ninterpretation that is conventional in mathematics:\n\n comparison ::= or_expr ( comp_operator or_expr )*\n comp_operator ::= "<" | ">" | "==" | ">=" | "<=" | "<>" | "!="\n | "is" ["not"] | ["not"] "in"\n\nComparisons yield boolean values: ``True`` or ``False``.\n\nComparisons can be chained arbitrarily, e.g., ``x < y <= z`` is\nequivalent to ``x < y and y <= z``, except that ``y`` is evaluated\nonly once (but in both cases ``z`` is not evaluated at all when ``x <\ny`` is found to be false).\n\nFormally, if *a*, *b*, *c*, ..., *y*, *z* are expressions and *op1*,\n*op2*, ..., *opN* are comparison operators, then ``a op1 b op2 c ... y\nopN z`` is equivalent to ``a op1 b and b op2 c and ... y opN z``,\nexcept that each expression is evaluated at most once.\n\nNote that ``a op1 b op2 c`` doesn\'t imply any kind of comparison\nbetween *a* and *c*, so that, e.g., ``x < y > z`` is perfectly legal\n(though perhaps not pretty).\n\nThe forms ``<>`` and ``!=`` are equivalent; for consistency with C,\n``!=`` is preferred; where ``!=`` is mentioned below ``<>`` is also\naccepted. The ``<>`` spelling is considered obsolescent.\n\nThe operators ``<``, ``>``, ``==``, ``>=``, ``<=``, and ``!=`` compare\nthe values of two objects. The objects need not have the same type.\nIf both are numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise,\nobjects of different types *always* compare unequal, and are ordered\nconsistently but arbitrarily. You can control comparison behavior of\nobjects of non-built-in types by defining a ``__cmp__`` method or rich\ncomparison methods like ``__gt__``, described in section *Special\nmethod names*.\n\n(This unusual definition of comparison was used to simplify the\ndefinition of operations like sorting and the ``in`` and ``not in``\noperators. In the future, the comparison rules for objects of\ndifferent types are likely to change.)\n\nComparison of objects of the same type depends on the type:\n\n* Numbers are compared arithmetically.\n\n* Strings are compared lexicographically using the numeric equivalents\n (the result of the built-in function ``ord()``) of their characters.\n Unicode and 8-bit strings are fully interoperable in this behavior.\n [4]\n\n* Tuples and lists are compared lexicographically using comparison of\n corresponding elements. This means that to compare equal, each\n element must compare equal and the two sequences must be of the same\n type and have the same length.\n\n If not equal, the sequences are ordered the same as their first\n differing elements. For example, ``cmp([1,2,x], [1,2,y])`` returns\n the same as ``cmp(x,y)``. If the corresponding element does not\n exist, the shorter sequence is ordered first (for example, ``[1,2] <\n [1,2,3]``).\n\n* Mappings (dictionaries) compare equal if and only if their sorted\n (key, value) lists compare equal. [5] Outcomes other than equality\n are resolved consistently, but are not otherwise defined. [6]\n\n* Most other objects of built-in types compare unequal unless they are\n the same object; the choice whether one object is considered smaller\n or larger than another one is made arbitrarily but consistently\n within one execution of a program.\n\nThe operators ``in`` and ``not in`` test for collection membership.\n``x in s`` evaluates to true if *x* is a member of the collection *s*,\nand false otherwise. ``x not in s`` returns the negation of ``x in\ns``. The collection membership test has traditionally been bound to\nsequences; an object is a member of a collection if the collection is\na sequence and contains an element equal to that object. However, it\nmake sense for many other object types to support membership tests\nwithout being a sequence. In particular, dictionaries (for keys) and\nsets support membership testing.\n\nFor the list and tuple types, ``x in y`` is true if and only if there\nexists an index *i* such that ``x == y[i]`` is true.\n\nFor the Unicode and string types, ``x in y`` is true if and only if\n*x* is a substring of *y*. An equivalent test is ``y.find(x) != -1``.\nNote, *x* and *y* need not be the same type; consequently, ``u\'ab\' in\n\'abc\'`` will return ``True``. Empty strings are always considered to\nbe a substring of any other string, so ``"" in "abc"`` will return\n``True``.\n\nChanged in version 2.3: Previously, *x* was required to be a string of\nlength ``1``.\n\nFor user-defined classes which define the ``__contains__()`` method,\n``x in y`` is true if and only if ``y.__contains__(x)`` is true.\n\nFor user-defined classes which do not define ``__contains__()`` but do\ndefine ``__iter__()``, ``x in y`` is true if some value ``z`` with ``x\n== z`` is produced while iterating over ``y``. If an exception is\nraised during the iteration, it is as if ``in`` raised that exception.\n\nLastly, the old-style iteration protocol is tried: if a class defines\n``__getitem__()``, ``x in y`` is true if and only if there is a non-\nnegative integer index *i* such that ``x == y[i]``, and all lower\ninteger indices do not raise ``IndexError`` exception. (If any other\nexception is raised, it is as if ``in`` raised that exception).\n\nThe operator ``not in`` is defined to have the inverse true value of\n``in``.\n\nThe operators ``is`` and ``is not`` test for object identity: ``x is\ny`` is true if and only if *x* and *y* are the same object. ``x is\nnot y`` yields the inverse truth value. [7]\n',
25 equality instead of the default\n identity based equality) can explicitly flag themselves as being\n unhashable by setting ``__hash__ = None`` in the class definition.\n Doing so means that not only will instances of the class raise an\n appropriate ``TypeError`` when a program attempts to retrieve their\n hash value, but they will also be correctly identified as\n unhashable when checking ``isinstance(obj, collections.Hashable)``\n (unlike classes which define their own ``__hash__()`` to explicitly\n raise ``TypeError``).\n\n Changed in version 2.5: ``__hash__()`` may now also return a long\n integer object; the 32-bit integer is then derived from the hash of\n that object.\n\n Changed in version 2.6: ``__hash__`` may now be set to ``None`` to\n explicitly flag instances of a class as unhashable.\n\nobject.__nonzero__(self)\n\n Called to implement truth value testing and the built-in operation\n ``bool()``; should return ``False`` or ``True``, or their integer\n equivalents ``0`` or ``1``. When this method is not defined,\n ``__len__()`` is called, if it is defined, and the object is\n considered true if its result is nonzero. If a class defines\n neither ``__len__()`` nor ``__nonzero__()``, all its instances are\n considered true.\n\nobject.__unicode__(self)\n\n Called to implement ``unicode()`` built-in; should return a Unicode\n object. When this method is not defined, string conversion is\n attempted, and the result of string conversion is converted to\n Unicode using the system default encoding.\n',
44 'in': '\nComparisons\n***********\n\nUnlike C, all comparison operations in Python have the same priority,\nwhich is lower than that of any arithmetic, shifting or bitwise\noperation. Also unlike C, expressions like ``a < b < c`` have the\ninterpretation that is conventional in mathematics:\n\n comparison ::= or_expr ( comp_operator or_expr )*\n comp_operator ::= "<" | ">" | "==" | ">=" | "<=" | "<>" | "!="\n | "is" ["not"] | ["not"] "in"\n\nComparisons yield boolean values: ``True`` or ``False``.\n\nComparisons can be chained arbitrarily, e.g., ``x < y <= z`` is\nequivalent to ``x < y and y <= z``, except that ``y`` is evaluated\nonly once (but in both cases ``z`` is not evaluated at all when ``x <\ny`` is found to be false).\n\nFormally, if *a*, *b*, *c*, ..., *y*, *z* are expressions and *op1*,\n*op2*, ..., *opN* are comparison operators, then ``a op1 b op2 c ... y\nopN z`` is equivalent to ``a op1 b and b op2 c and ... y opN z``,\nexcept that each expression is evaluated at most once.\n\nNote that ``a op1 b op2 c`` doesn\'t imply any kind of comparison\nbetween *a* and *c*, so that, e.g., ``x < y > z`` is perfectly legal\n(though perhaps not pretty).\n\nThe forms ``<>`` and ``!=`` are equivalent; for consistency with C,\n``!=`` is preferred; where ``!=`` is mentioned below ``<>`` is also\naccepted. The ``<>`` spelling is considered obsolescent.\n\nThe operators ``<``, ``>``, ``==``, ``>=``, ``<=``, and ``!=`` compare\nthe values of two objects. The objects need not have the same type.\nIf both are numbers, they are converted to a common type. Otherwise,\nobjects of different types *always* compare unequal, and are ordered\nconsistently but arbitrarily. You can control comparison behavior of\nobjects of non-built-in types by defining a ``__cmp__`` method or rich\ncomparison methods like ``__gt__``, described in section *Special\nmethod names*.\n\n(This unusual definition of comparison was used to simplify the\ndefinition of operations like sorting and the ``in`` and ``not in``\noperators. In the future, the comparison rules for objects of\ndifferent types are likely to change.)\n\nComparison of objects of the same type depends on the type:\n\n* Numbers are compared arithmetically.\n\n* Strings are compared lexicographically using the numeric equivalents\n (the result of the built-in function ``ord()``) of their characters.\n Unicode and 8-bit strings are fully interoperable in this behavior.\n [4]\n\n* Tuples and lists are compared lexicographically using comparison of\n corresponding elements. This means that to compare equal, each\n element must compare equal and the two sequences must be of the same\n type and have the same length.\n\n If not equal, the sequences are ordered the same as their first\n differing elements. For example, ``cmp([1,2,x], [1,2,y])`` returns\n the same as ``cmp(x,y)``. If the corresponding element does not\n exist, the shorter sequence is ordered first (for example, ``[1,2] <\n [1,2,3]``).\n\n* Mappings (dictionaries) compare equal if and only if their sorted\n (key, value) lists compare equal. [5] Outcomes other than equality\n are resolved consistently, but are not otherwise defined. [6]\n\n* Most other objects of built-in types compare unequal unless they are\n the same object; the choice whether one object is considered smaller\n or larger than another one is made arbitrarily but consistently\n within one execution of a program.\n\nThe operators ``in`` and ``not in`` test for collection membership.\n``x in s`` evaluates to true if *x* is a member of the collection *s*,\nand false otherwise. ``x not in s`` returns the negation of ``x in\ns``. The collection membership test has traditionally been bound to\nsequences; an object is a member of a collection if the collection is\na sequence and contains an element equal to that object. However, it\nmake sense for many other object types to support membership tests\nwithout being a sequence. In particular, dictionaries (for keys) and\nsets support membership testing.\n\nFor the list and tuple types, ``x in y`` is true if and only if there\nexists an index *i* such that ``x == y[i]`` is true.\n\nFor the Unicode and string types, ``x in y`` is true if and only if\n*x* is a substring of *y*. An equivalent test is ``y.find(x) != -1``.\nNote, *x* and *y* need not be the same type; consequently, ``u\'ab\' in\n\'abc\'`` will return ``True``. Empty strings are always considered to\nbe a substring of any other string, so ``"" in "abc"`` will return\n``True``.\n\nChanged in version 2.3: Previously, *x* was required to be a string of\nlength ``1``.\n\nFor user-defined classes which define the ``__contains__()`` method,\n``x in y`` is true if and only if ``y.__contains__(x)`` is true.\n\nFor user-defined classes which do not define ``__contains__()`` but do\ndefine ``__iter__()``, ``x in y`` is true if some value ``z`` with ``x\n== z`` is produced while iterating over ``y``. If an exception is\nraised during the iteration, it is as if ``in`` raised that exception.\n\nLastly, the old-style iteration protocol is tried: if a class defines\n``__getitem__()``, ``x in y`` is true if and only if there is a non-\nnegative integer index *i* such that ``x == y[i]``, and all lower\ninteger indices do not raise ``IndexError`` exception. (If any other\nexception is raised, it is as if ``in`` raised that exception).\n\nThe operator ``not in`` is defined to have the inverse true value of\n``in``.\n\nThe operators ``is`` and ``is not`` test for object identity: ``x is\ny`` is true if and only if *x* and *y* are the same object. ``x is\nnot y`` yields the inverse truth value. [7]\n',
52 'operator-summary': '\nOperator precedence\n*******************\n\nThe following table summarizes the operator precedences in Python,\nfrom lowest precedence (least binding) to highest precedence (most\nbinding). Operators in the same box have the same precedence. Unless\nthe syntax is explicitly given, operators are binary. Operators in\nthe same box group left to right (except for comparisons, including\ntests, which all have the same precedence and chain from left to right\n--- see section *Comparisons* --- and exponentiation, which groups\nfrom right to left).\n\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| Operator | Description |\n+=================================================+=======================================+\n| ``lambda`` | Lambda expression |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``if`` -- ``else`` | Conditional expression |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``or`` | Boolean OR |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``and`` | Boolean AND |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``not`` ``x`` | Boolean NOT |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``in``, ``not in``, ``is``, ``is not``, ``<``, | Comparisons, including membership |\n| ``<=``, ``>``, ``>=``, ``<>``, ``!=``, ``==`` | tests and identity tests |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``|`` | Bitwise OR |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``^`` | Bitwise XOR |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``&`` | Bitwise AND |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``<<``, ``>>`` | Shifts |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``+``, ``-`` | Addition and subtraction |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``*``, ``/``, ``//``, ``%`` | Multiplication, division, remainder |\n| | [8] |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``+x``, ``-x``, ``~x`` | Positive, negative, bitwise NOT |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``**`` | Exponentiation [9] |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``x[index]``, ``x[index:index]``, | Subscription, slicing, call, |\n| ``x(arguments...)``, ``x.attribute`` | attribute reference |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n| ``(expressions...)``, ``[expressions...]``, | Binding or tuple display, list |\n| ``{key: value...}``, ```expressions...``` | display, dictionary display, string |\n| | conversion |\n+-------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+\n\n-[ Footnotes ]-\n\n[1] In Python 2.3 and later releases, a list comprehension "leaks" the\n control variables of each ``for`` it contains into the containing\n scope. However, this behavior is deprecated, and relying on it\n will not work in Python 3.\n\n[2] While ``abs(x%y) < abs(y)`` is true mathematically, for floats it\n may not be true numerically due to roundoff. For example, and\n assuming a platform on which a Python float is an IEEE 754 double-\n precision number, in order that ``-1e-100 % 1e100`` have the same\n sign as ``1e100``, the computed result is ``-1e-100 + 1e100``,\n which is numerically exactly equal to ``1e100``. The function\n ``math.fmod()`` returns a result whose sign matches the sign of\n the first argument instead, and so returns ``-1e-100`` in this\n case. Which approach is more appropriate depends on the\n application.\n\n[3] If x is very close to an exact integer multiple of y, it\'s\n possible for ``floor(x/y)`` to be one larger than ``(x-x%y)/y``\n due to rounding. In such cases, Python returns the latter result,\n in order to preserve that ``divmod(x,y)[0] * y + x % y`` be very\n close to ``x``.\n\n[4] While comparisons between unicode strings make sense at the byte\n level, they may be counter-intuitive to users. For example, the\n strings ``u"\\u00C7"`` and ``u"\\u0043\\u0327"`` compare differently,\n even though they both represent the same unicode character (LATIN\n CAPITAL LETTER C WITH CEDILLA). To compare strings in a human\n recognizable way, compare using ``unicodedata.normalize()``.\n\n[5] The implementation computes this efficiently, without constructing\n lists or sorting.\n\n[6] Earlier versions of Python used lexicographic comparison of the\n sorted (key, value) lists, but this was very expensive for the\n common case of comparing for equality. An even earlier version of\n Python compared dictionaries by identity only, but this caused\n surprises because people expected to be able to test a dictionary\n for emptiness by comparing it to ``{}``.\n\n[7] Due to automatic garbage-collection, free lists, and the dynamic\n nature of descriptors, you may notice seemingly unusual behaviour\n in certain uses of the ``is`` operator, like those involving\n comparisons between instance methods, or constants. Check their\n documentation for more info.\n\n[8] The ``%`` operator is also used for string formatting; the same\n precedence applies.\n\n[9] The power operator ``**`` binds less tightly than an arithmetic or\n bitwise unary operator on its right, that is, ``2**-1`` is\n ``0.5``.\n',
61 equality instead of the default\n identity based equality
