Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Seaborn wrote:
> > It appears that unbound methods do what you want in the general case
> > in Python 2.5 and 2.6. It's just that __lt__ behaves unlike normal
> > unbound methods. So this isn't an argument
Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Seaborn wrote:
> > Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I have seen a couple of objections to leaving unbound methods naked (as
> >> functions) when retrieved in 3.0. Here is a plus.
> &g
Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen a couple of objections to leaving unbound methods naked (as
> functions) when retrieved in 3.0. Here is a plus.
>
> A c.l.p poster reported that 2.6 broke his code because the addition of
> default rich comparisons to object turned tests like
