Carl Banks wrote: > On Mar 23, 1:38 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> Well, I thought it was also to get rid of 3-way cmp in general, in favor >> of rich comparison. > > Supporting both __cmp__ and rich comparison methods of a class does > add a lot of complexity. The cmp argument of sort doesn't. > > The cmp argument doesn't depend in any way on an object's __cmp__ > method, so getting rid of __cmp__ wasn't any good readon to also get > rid of the cmp argument; their only relationship is that they're > spelled the same. Nor is there any reason why cmp being a useful > argument of sort should indicate that __cmp__ should be retained in > classes.
I would have thought that the upper limit of cost of supporting cmp= and key= would be two different internal front-ends to the internal internal sort. Mel. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list