Changes by cvp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10793/unnamed
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
Changes by cvp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10792/unnamed
___
Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<http://bugs.pytho
cvp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
1) I didn't say that the option to edit __ne__ should be removed, only that
it'd be both more consistent and convenient to change the meaning to
something relative by default.
2) So long as the old code defines __ne__, which I'm
cvp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
But why not? Laziness or something? Or "just cuz?"
-Constantine
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Benjamin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment:
>
&g
New submission from cvp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
After defining my own __eq__ method for a class that judged equality
based on a 'name' variable, imagine my surprise to see this:
In [20]: my_graph.edges[-1].end == my_graph.vertices[-1]
Out [20]: True
In [21]: my_gra
