On 01/07/2018 04:57 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
Chris Angelico writes:
Let's put it this way. Suppose that __eq__ existed and __ne__ didn't,
just like with __contains__. Go ahead: sell the notion of __ne__.
Pitch it, show why we absolutely need to allow this.
I think “reject unless absolutely needed” is an unreasonably high bar,
which would disqualify most Python language features. So I don't know
why you expect this to be so especially strongly argued.
True, I exaggerated a bit. But do you think that, had __ne__ not
existed for years, its addition could be justified?
Considering we just recently added a matrix-multiplication operator, yes.
--
~Ethan~
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
