On 10/16/07, David A. Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Collin Winter: losing __cmp__ is a loss (see > http://oakwinter.com/code/). > > Yes, it's possible to write all the comparison operations, but I think it's > _clearer_ to create a single low-level operator that handles ALL the > comparison operators. It also avoids many mistakes; once you get that ONE > operator right, ALL comparisons are right. I think the python 2 way is > better: individual operations for the cases where you want to handle each > case specially, and a single __cmp__ function that is a simple way to handle > comparisons all at once.
Perhaps, but do note that __cmp__ is *higher* level than __eq__ etc. , not lower level. I'd be okay with code that detects the presence of _cmp__ and then automatically defines __eq__ etc. accordingly. Whether this should be default behavior or a mixin that you explicitly have to request I'm not sure. I'd be willing to entertain a PEP that clearly explains the motivation and puts forward a specific solution. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
