Separating __cmp__ from < and > ?

[Tim Peters]

[Huaiyu Zhu]
> As two others have pointed out, allowing additional __lt__,
> __gt__ would not make __cmp__ worse for use with sort.  In
> fact, it might make it better.

FYI, in anticipation of the "Rich Comparisons" proposal (mentioned earlier),
the implementation of list.sort() was changed in 1.5.2 already so that x<y?
is the *only* kind of comparison question it ever needs an answer to.  Never
asks about >, >=, <=, == or !=.  So instances of a class that defined only
__lt__  would continue to sort fine.

> ...
> PS. I just checked the Rich Comparison PEP and it is empty.  Would it also
> suddenly get some contents from nowhere when a discussion reaches some
> conclusion?  Maybe this whole PEP business is a ploy to keep outsiders
> out? <0.9wink>

Yes <wink>.  Actually, David Ascher is just too busy now.  The design of
rich comparisons was worked out in great detail on c.l.py a couple years
ago, long before PEPs were invented.  Sending email to him about it would
act as a useful spur to resume it <wink>.