Thomas Jollans <t...@jollybox.de> writes: > My sole point, really, is that "normally", one would expect these two > expressions to be equivalent: > > a < b < c > (a < b) < c
What norm gives you that expectation? That's not how those operators work in mathematical notation. I know of no programming language that would give a newcomer to Python that expectation. So where is the norm you're referring to? The operator symbols are not chosen arbitrarily for Python; they are, in the case of ‘<’ and ‘>’, chosen because of semantic meaning those symbols already have. That's the norm informing this meaning, and I think it negates the point you're making. > This is clearly not true. That's the inconsistency here with the rest > of the language. There is inconsistency already in the symbols people see and the semantics already associated with those symbols. Expecting that any symbol, before Python defines it, will be devoid of any normal meaning is a delusion. -- \ “The Vatican is not a state.… a state must have territory. This | `\ is a palace with gardens, about as big as an average golf | _o__) course.” —Geoffrey Robertson, 2010-09-18 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list