> I proposed cmp.lo and cmp.hi as a trial balloon for the idea of > using specific public function attributes (as opposed to generic > implementation attributes) as a 'low-cost' alternative to builtin > names for something that is useful but not so central as None, True, > and False. I had no thought then of non-native-English users or > much attachment to the specifics except for the shortness. > Capitalizing the constants' names would follow precedence. Using > Min and Max reuses existing knowledge, so this would be OK by me. Hm. cmp is a *builtin function*. That seems an exceedingly odd place to stick arbitrary constants -- much more so than type objects (like Martin's recently proposed unicode property for controlling error handling). --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