[Chicago] Ode to <>
deadwisdom at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 21:49:05 CEST 2006
My problem with <> is that it seems so Visual Basic to me, or at least
QBasic. Also, I think the "!" as a "not" is pretty well entrenched in
the programming zeitgeist these days.
On 8/31/06, John Melesky <list at phaedrusdeinus.org> wrote:
> > If I got a vote (which I don't), I'd stick with <>. I never ever use !=.
> > OTOH, I regularly type = instead of ==, so maybe I'll lose that bad habit.
> I read that this morning and, though i don't see the need to get rid of
> either, i do think != is the one to keep. <> has many benefits, but
> semantically implies arguments which can fit into a sequence.
> To put it another way, can one object be < another object? Or >? I know
> the two objects can be ==, and i know they can be (not ==), but < and >
> are properties of sortable items, which the objects may not be.
> I have no idea if that's the basis of Guido's mandate, but that's where
> i am.
> Chicago mailing list
> Chicago at python.org
More information about the Chicago