New submission from cvp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
After defining my own __eq__ method for a class that judged equality
based on a 'name' variable, imagine my surprise to see this:
In [20]: my_graph.edges[-1].end == my_graph.vertices[-1]
Out [20]: True
In [21]: my_graph.edges[-1].end
cvp [EMAIL PROTECTED] added the comment:
1) I didn't say that the option to edit __ne__ should be removed, only that
it'd be both more consistent and convenient to change the meaning to
something relative by default.
2) So long as the old code defines __ne__, which I'm guessing is the code
Changes by cvp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10792/unnamed
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3254
___
___
Python-bugs
Changes by cvp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Removed file: http://bugs.python.org/file10793/unnamed
___
Python tracker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bugs.python.org/issue3254
___
___
Python-bugs
