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, None() == None, and so on. This Nonesense was wisely rejected; a whole slew of early-error-catching would have gone out of the window. It's the same with making None smaller than everything else. For numbers, you can already use -inf; for other types, you'll have to invent your own Smallest if you need it.
In short, I'll have None of it. -- --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
