On 18/02/2014 15:45, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 2/18/2014 12:11 AM, Greg Ewing wrote: > >> Nobody is asking for a return to the arbitrary-but- >> [in]consistent mess of Python 2, only to bring >> back *one* special case, i.e. None comparing less >> than everything else. > > For a < None, that is only the fallback rule if a does not handle the > comparison. The result is a mess, including a possible inconsistency > between direct comparison and cmp. See my previous posts. > > 'Bringing back' what was or an improved version would be a semantic > change that could break code and would require a two-version deprecation > period. > Sorry if this has already been suggested, but why not introduce a new singleton to make the database people happier if not happy? To avoid confusion call it dbnull? A reasonable compromise or complete cobblers? :) -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
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