cvp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
1) I didn't say that the option to edit __ne__ should be removed, only that
it'd be both more consistent and convenient to change the meaning to
something relative by default.
2) So long as the old code defines __ne__, which I'm guessing is the code
that you're telling me will break, I still don't see how this will cause any
issues whatsoever. I mean, I guess it could mess up some people who were
using '!=' to be *intentionally* synonymous with 'is not', but that's
awfully contrived for a language that's supposed to be well-known for being
straight-forward and easily readable.
-Constantine
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file10793/unnamed
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue3254>
_______________________________________
1) I didn't say that the option to edit __ne__ should be removed, only that
it'd be both more consistent and convenient to change the meaning to
something relative by default.<br><br>2) So long as the old code defines
__ne__, which I'm guessing is the code that you're telling me will
break, I still don't see how this will cause any issues whatsoever. I mean,
I guess it could mess up some people who were using '!=' to be
*intentionally* synonymous with 'is not', but that's awfully
contrived for a language that's supposed to be well-known for being
straight-forward and easily readable.<br>
<br>-Constantine<br>
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
