> 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
