"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Should be in the reference manual section on comparisons.
Only to this extent: http://www.python.org/doc/2.4/ref/comparisons.html objects of different types always compare unequal, and are ordered consistently but arbitrarily. (This unusual definition of comparison was used to simplify the definition of operations like sorting and the in and not in operators. In the future, the comparison rules for objects of different types are likely to change.) ... Most other types compare unequal unless they are the same object; the choice whether one object is considered smaller or larger than another one is made arbitrarily but consistently within one execution of a program. This does not provide a direct answer to "why" None comparisons. (As far as I can tell, None is less than any object.) However, Gary Herron's explanation makes sense: this provides a stable sort when None is involved, and meets the criterion that objects of different types must always compare unequal. However this would also be true if None always compared greater than any object, and the current behavior does not seem to be guaranteed. Is that about right? Cheers, Alan Isaac -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
