On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 7:04 PM, Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk> wrote: > > To implement __lt__ in Python 2, I could do: > > def __lt__(self, other): > if not isinstance(other, Range): > return True > return ((self._lower, self._upper, self._bounds) < > (other._lower, other._upper, other._bounds)) > > Because None < 1 raises a TypeError, in Python 3 I have to do: > > def __lt__(self, other): > if not isinstance(other, Range): > return NotImplemented > for attr in '_lower', '_upper', '_bounds': > self_value = getattr(self, attr) > other_value = getattr(other, attr) > if self_value == other_value: > pass > elif self_value is None: > return True > elif other_value is None: > return False > else: > return self_value < other_value > return False > > Am I missing something? How can I get this method down to a sane size? Can you be certain that all your values are either None or positive integers? If so, try this: def __lt__(self, other): if not isinstance(other, Range): return True # or NotImplemented, not sure why this change return ((self._lower or 0, self._upper or 0, self._bounds or 0) < (other._lower or 0, other._upper or 0, other._bounds or 0)) That'll treat all Nones as 0, and compare them accordingly. If you can't depend on them being positive (eg if you need None to be less than 0 rather than equal - even more so if you need it to be less than negative numbers), you'll need to more explicitly check. But this is nice and tidy, if it works. ChrisA
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