Re: [HACKERS] samekeys

> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > This basically says that key1, which is the old key, has to match key2
> > for the length of key1.  If key2 has extra keys after that, that is
> > fine.  We will still consider the keys equal.  The old code obviously
> > was broken and badly thought out.
> > ...
> > I am unsure if samekeys should just test the first key for equality, or
> > the full length of key1 as I have done.
> 
> The comment in front of samekeys claimed:
> 
>  *       It isn't necessary to check that each sublist exactly contain
>  *       the same elements because if the routine that built these
>  *       sublists together is correct, having one element in common
>  *       implies having all elements in common.
> 
> Was that wrong?  Or, perhaps, it was once right but no longer?
> It sounded like fragile coding to me, but I didn't have reason
> to know it was broken...

I think it was wrong.  It clearly was not passing the right parameters.
As far as I know (1,2,3) and (3,2,1) are not the same.  Their test would
just take '1' and see if it is in (3,2,1).

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026