Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path: <cameron@cskk.homeip.net>
X-Original-To: python-list@python.org
Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000
X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'operator': 0.03; 'subject:bug': 0.07; 'consistency': 0.09; 'lawrence': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; '>that': 0.16; '__lt__': 0.16; 'call?': 0.16; 'from:addr:cs': 0.16; 'from:addr:zip.com.au': 0.16; 'from:name:cameron simpson': 0.16; 'insisted': 0.16; 'message- id:@cskk.homeip.net': 0.16; 'ought': 0.16; 'python3.': 0.16; 'received:211.29': 0.16; 'received:211.29.132': 0.16; 'received:optusnet.com.au': 0.16; 'received:syd.optusnet.com.au': 0.16; 'silly': 0.16; 'simpson': 0.16; 'subject:python3': 0.16; 'types,': 0.16; 'unordered': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'cheers,': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; "i'm": 0.30; 'sense': 0.34; 'but': 0.35; 'received:com.au': 0.36; 'surely': 0.36; 'charset:us-ascii': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'received:211': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'aside': 0.39; 'either': 0.39; 'how': 0.40; 'dave': 0.60; 'content-disposition:inline': 0.62; 'special': 0.74; 'angel': 0.91
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 09:30:40 +1000
From: Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>
To: Dave Angel <davea@davea.name>
Subject: Re: Differences of "!=" operator behavior in python3 and python2 [ bug? ]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <519175B0.90603@davea.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
References: <519175B0.90603@davea.name>
X-Optus-CM-Score: 0
X-Optus-CM-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=BPvrNysG c=1 sm=1 a=wom5GMh1gUkA:10 a=xu1jQgGuIs8A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=vrnE16BAAAAA:8 a=ZtCCktOnAAAA:8 a=ckcrQAo8segA:10 a=bviAcSKZsp2Wh_mcUT0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=ChdAjXE5lkUvdteQbhpnkQ==:117
Cc: python-list@python.org
X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post: <mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help: <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.1649.1368487859.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace: 1368487859 news.xs4all.nl 15928 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:38887
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:45271

On 13May2013 19:22, Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> wrote:
| On 05/13/2013 06:53 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
| >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.

Surely it should require both of them to be true...

Personally I'm for != given we have ==. Aside from notational
consistency it makes conceptual sense for unordered types, which
<> does not really.

Cheers,
-- 
Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au>