Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We're not going to add the "feature" back that None compares smaller > than everything. It's a slippery slope that ends with all operations > involving None returning None -- I've seen a proposal made in all > earnestness requesting that None+42 == None, None() == None, and so > on. This Nonesense was wisely rejected
I agree with that decision. However, the behaviour you specify *is* useful (though I don't think ‘None’ should have that behaviour). It is the “Null object” design pattern, and may be familiar to many readers in its SQL implementation as the ‘NULL’ non-value. In fact, there is a Python Cookbook recipe implementing a ‘Null’ object <URL:http://code.activestate.com/recipes/68205/> that also features in the O'Reilly _Python Cookbook, second edition_. -- \ “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending | `\ the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the | _o__) hopes of its children.” —Dwight Eisenhower, 1953-04-16 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
