> Then why do you write, let me quote: > > """ > (snip) coding __eq__ (snip) buys you > nothing from the != operator. != isn't (by default) a synonym for the > negation of == (unlike in, say, every other language ever); not only > will Python let you make them mean different things, without > documenting this fact - it actively encourages you to do so. > """
My words aren't as clear as they should be. I mean that Python lets *you* do something without documenting, or rather stating to use a better term, that your intention is the non-obvious one. I'm not saying that Python itself lacks documentation for its own behaviour; I'm saying it should force you to make your intentions clear and visible to someone reading your code when you want to do something non- obvious. > I was not commenting on the actual design choice, just stating that it > is actually documented. Yes, it is. I apologise for the poor construction of my statement which led to this confusion. > And you're talking about strawman ??? Come on, you obviously can tell > the difference between a one-line statement and your above strawman > argument, don't you ? I'm talking about strawmen because I was deliberately choosing to invoke one with rhetorical flourish for the purposes of making my point forcefully. I wanted people to be clear that I knew perfectly well what I was doing and that they needn't call me out on it. > 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. Good, at least we've come to a point in this discussion where I can firmly agree with somebody. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
