Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.008 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; 'operator': 0.03; 'explicit': 0.07; 'subject:bug': 0.07; 'adopted': 0.09; 'ambiguity': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'statements': 0.09; 'worked.': 0.09; 'python': 0.11; '__lt__': 0.16; 'call?': 0.16; 'guess.': 0.16; 'insisted': 0.16; 'languages)': 0.16; 'ought': 0.16; 'python3.': 0.16; 'received:74.208.4.195': 0.16; 'silly': 0.16; 'subject:python3': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; '>>>': 0.22; 'comfortable': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'mon,': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'lines': 0.31; '+0100,': 0.31; 'test': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'doing': 0.36; "didn't": 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'clear': 0.37; 'to:addr :python-list': 0.38; 'fact': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'either': 0.39; 'how': 0.40; 'most': 0.60; 'personal': 0.63; 'myself': 0.63; 'face': 0.64; 'stand': 0.64; 'more': 0.64; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.65; 'received:74.208': 0.68; 'special': 0.74; 'beats': 0.84; 'zen': 0.84; 'refuse': 0.93; '2013': 0.98 Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:22:24 -0400 From: Dave Angel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Differences of "!=" operator behavior in python3 and python2 [ bug? ] References: <51912C27.3020809@nedbatchelder.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ZQv0xSJkAbd6BmHFHS4Igcr4N3CiMyOGA1lKMkozk+b BZK1bhiHkgWhdXxjX+yA7c35x36nNE0POHRYH/t+bkBFsmqX0y Lp37bG92x6YTlwKLtBn3QE+8bTx/Rbjqa+eS0qS+/EiNRWOFMg WqYmPOt6J/01N2ldjgosDpHCtgsvRF/s2APovN+rmSRuMqpiJs E815yjQZCnnLBapxVxtw/DyKV7mz6KUUu+UAM7bcIogEJyFb5Q tcn/W6tG8RtmU6ClpiRV1EMHmXky/f3f5v55Gf3fA1uzt8qOfC IV2+jeEeCzXKyXTe5ni7rH4Jya/9LghmUYqEXJpVOmYSmk7VA= = X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 38 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1368487365 news.xs4all.nl 15993 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:33886 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:45269 On 05/13/2013 06:53 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 13/05/2013 22:17, Alister wrote: >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:28:29 +0100, Fábio Santos wrote: >> >>> I think it is more readable. When doing more complicated statements I >>> use != instead, but when it's a single test I prefer not … == >>> >>> It's a personal thing. It may also have to do with the fact that I >>> didn't know python had != when I was a novice. >>> On 13 May 2013 19:08, "Ned Batchelder" wrote: >>> >> >> I would then still write it as not (x == y) to make it clear to myself & >> avoid any possible confusion although I think that X != Y is much >> cleaner. >> 2 lines from the zen stand out here:- >> >> Explicit is better than implicit. >> in the face of ambiguity refuse the temptation to guess. >> >> there are many features of Python (& other languages) i did not now when >> I started but have adopted once I understood what they were & how they >> worked. then again use what you are most comfortable with. >> >> Practicality beats purity >> > > I much prefer the alternative <> for != but some silly people insisted > that this be removed from Python3. Just how stupid can you get? > So which special methods should the <> operator call? By rights it ought to call both __gt__ and __lt__ and return True if either of them is True. -- DaveA