On 17 Feb 2014 21:15, "M.-A. Lemburg" <mal at egenix.com> wrote: > > On 15.02.2014 07:03, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > M.-A. Lemburg writes: > > > > > IMO, it was a mistake to have None return a TypeError in > > > comparisons, since it makes many typical data operations > > > fail, e.g. > > > > I don't understand this statement. The theory is that they *should* > > fail. > > > > The example of sort is a good one. Sometimes you want missing values > > to be collected at the beginning of a list, sometimes at the end. > > Sometimes you want them treated as top elements, sometimes as bottom. > > And sometimes it is a real error for missing values to be present. > > Not to mention that sometimes the programmer simply hasn't thought > > about the appropriate policy. I don't think Python should silently > > impose a policy in that case, especially given that the programmer may > > have experience with any of the above treatments in other contexts. > > None is special in Python and has always (and intentionally) sorted > before any other object. In data processing and elsewhere in Python > programming, it's used to signal: no value available. This is the first I've ever heard of that sorting behaviour being an intentional feature, rather than just an artefact of Python 2 allowing arbitrarily ordered comparisons between different types. Can you point me to the relevant entry in the Python 2 language reference? Cheers, Nick. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20140217/a608348c/attachment.html>
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