Odd truth result with in and ==
On 11/21/18 7:09 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:04 AM Dan Sommers
> <2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE at potatochowder.com> wrote:
>> But the second one has to do an expensive subset operation. If I think
>> "is elem in both sets," then I'd never write:
>> (elem in set1) and (set1 <= set2)
> Yes, but that doesn't mean "is elem in both sets". It means "is elem
> in set 1, which needs to be a subset of set 2" ...
Then I was right about not mapping "is elem in both sets" to that
But I did make the leap from Serhiy's original expression to "is elem in
both sets," which *may* mean that Serhiy's original expression is
confusing, but it's probably just further evidence that I'm not actually
as sharp as I think I am.
> ... I'm not sure where that would come up though.