[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Géry added the comment: Alright @rhettinger, here is the post: https://discuss.python.org/t/add-missing-default-implementations-of-le-and-ge/5327 -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: This issue is more of a question or objection than a bug report, so I'm going to mark this as closed. Feel free to continue the discussion on python-ideas or ask more about it on StackOverflow. -- resolution: -> not a bug stage: -> resolved

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Irit Katriel added the comment: The PEP that Raymond linked to says: "Further smarts could have been added to the comparison mechanism, but this limited set of allowed "swaps" was chosen because it doesn't require the infrastructure to do any processing (negation) of return values. The

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Géry added the comment: More precisely: The following relationships are always valid and therefore implemented by default in Python (_except for the union relationships, which seems arbitrary and is the reason of this Python issue_): - 2

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Géry added the comment: Note that other relationships are always valid _and already implemented by default in the interpreter (through the `NotImplemented` return value protocol)_: = is the [converse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation#Converse) of itself, ≠ is the converse of

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Géry added the comment: Thanks for the reference @Raymond. I could not find any mention of the union relationships for ≤ and ≥ though. Since they are always valid for Boolean values, in the same way that ≠ is always the complement of = for Boolean values and default implemented as such in

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: See https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0207/ -- nosy: +rhettinger ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue39862] Why are the union relationships not implemented by default for ≤ and ≥?

New submission from Géry : Mathematically, the [binary relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation) ≤ is the [union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation#Union) of the binary relations < and =, while the binary relation ≥ is the union of the binary relations > and =. So