+1 from me too if you only need to define __lt__ and __eq__ and __le__ and __gt__, etc, will default to that. If it dosn't default to those, I feel that one would need to write too many functions.
On Jan 8, 2008 7:12 PM, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 8, 2008 3:55 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 8, 2008 2:41 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > list.sort() and built-in sorted() are the least of our problems: even > > > though the API uses cmp, the implementation actually only ever uses > > > '<'; and the preferred API is to use the 'key' argument instead of > > > passing a compare function; that's much more efficient. > > > > > > Maybe we should retire the compare function completely in 3.0? > > > > > > > +1 from me. I personally have always hated the whole, -1, 0, 1 style > > of comparison anyway. > > +1 from here too. I've found it frustrating that the first argument > to sort() and sorted() is the least useful. ;-) > > Steve > -- > I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a > tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. > --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy >
_______________________________________________ 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
