Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> writes: > > Well, that assert is not right because you have to handle the case > > where one of the values is None... > Sorry, it worked under 2.5:
Well, it didn't crash under 2.5. Whether the result was correct is a different question. > None seems to have been evaluated less then any integer. The same isn't > true under 3.0: But the original code didn't specify the non-None values to be integers. Really, it's unwise to rely on an ordering relation between None and values of arbitrary other types, unless supportable by a clear specification, but even then, it's a code smell. > 3.0 TypeError: unorderable types: NoneType() <= int() That is far preferable to what 2.x does. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list