Support for almost equal like equality #988
Open
wasade wants to merge 6 commits into
Open
Conversation
| @@ -1879,19 +1927,10 @@ def _data_equality(self, other): | |||
| necessary before performing the final comparison. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are all these docstring comments ("Matrices are equal iff the following items are equal ") still appropriate to this particular method? I'm wondering if they would make more sense on __eq__ or with some of them going onto _data_equality_meta.
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This particular method, _data_equality is called on __eq__ and should not exhibit different semantics from prior versions. However, I agree that they could be shuffled to more precise locations -- thanks! I'll do that in a moment
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #983, partially addresses #982.
Note that error checking for
nanis coming in a separate PR.cc @AmandaBirmingham