On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> wrote: > > I was just saying that in the specific, > complicated, contrived expression Nick presented, that it always > returns False (no matter which aware datetime he starts with) would be > more of a head-scratcher than if it raised a "can't compare naive and > aware datetimes" exception instead.
The current behavior is no fault of yours. Guido, Antoine and I share all the blame and credit for it. [1,2]