Ben Finney wrote:
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+
Ben Finney wrote:
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+
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, N
