[Terry Reedy] > For user-defined types/classes, I presume that this would still mean > deferring to the appropriate magic method (__cmp__ or __ge__?) to > define 'meaningful'. Yes. And I'm still hoping to remove __cmp__; there should be only one way to overload comparisons. > > I'd like to to this in Python 3.0, but that probably means we'd have > > to start deprecating default comparisons except (in)equality in > Python > > 2.4. > > +1, I think. > > Based on reading cl.py, the validity of nonsense comparisons is one of > the more surprising 'features' of Python for beginners -- who > reasonably expect a TypeError or ValueError. Once they get past that, > they are then surprised by the unstability across versions. Given > that universal sorting of hetero-lists is now broken, I think it would > be better to do away with it cleanly. It is seldom needed and would > still be available with a user-defined sorting function (which > requires some thought as to what is really wanted). Exactly. > A Python version of the present algorithm could be included (in > Tools/xx perhaps) for anyone who actually needs it. I doubt there will be many takers. Let people make up their own version, so they know its behavior. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4