> > Please understand that I'm not arguing about this particular design > choice (and FWIW, I'd mostly agree on the point that having a != b > different from not (a == b) is actually a wart). I'm just correcting > your statement about the behaviour of __eq__ / __ne__ not being > documented, which is obviously false. > > (snip)
What was the reasoning behind having both __eq__ / __ne__ anyway? To fit in with the equality comparisons? I do agree this one seems like a wart, but not a serious one. I'd say it would make more sense for the interpreter to provide a warning on classes that define one and not that other, at least if set to a certain level, similar to -3 for depreciated. (Or does this exist? I think a "wart" catching level that outputs potential warts and issues would be a useful addition!) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
