On 17 February 2014 11:49, Gustavo Carneiro <gjcarne...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> FWIW, I don't think we need to invent a new name for it, just add >> an appropriate tp_richcompare slot to the PyNoneType or readd the >> special case to Object/object.c. This would also aid in porting >> existing Python 2 code to Python 3. > > > Based on your comment, SortsFirst and SortsLast sound like good names ;-) > > These would be "universal sortable objects", that could be compared to any > other type.
I think that having both is over-engineered. For the use cases I know of, all that is wanted is *one* object that doesn't raise a TypeError when compared with any other object, and compares predictably (always before or always after, doesn't matter which). Whether that object is None, or whether it should be a new singleton, is not obvious. The advantage of None is that it's Python 2 compatible (which aids porting as noted). The advantage of a new object is that not all uses of None need universal sortability, and indeed in some cases universal sortability will hide bugs. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
