On Jul 26, 5:28 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > IMO, you made a big mistake in combining your point with two other meaty > issues (whether method definitions should include self and whether != > should use __eq__() as a fallback). <snip> > If solid discussion > is your goal, I suggest that you wait a couple of weeks and start over > with a brand-new thread.
I fully subscribe this. The point about __eq__ is legitimate and could be discussed with quite tones. I was bitten by this surprising behavior just a few days ago, I had defined __eq__ and I expected __neq__ to be defined in the obvious way. I saw that it was not the case and I figured out immediately that I had to override __neq__ explicitely (I have the "explicit is better than implicit" mantra ingrained in my mind too), I did so and everything worked out as a charm. Total time loss: five minutes. So, it is not a big point. Still I think that it would make sense to automatically define __neq__ as the negation of __eq__. I suppose the developers did not want to make a special case in the implementation and this is also a legitimate concern. Michele Simionato -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
