Null object pattern

[Terry Reedy]

Ben Finney wrote:
> Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
> 
>> We're not going to add the "feature" back that None compares smaller
>> than everything. It's a slippery slope that ends with all operations
>> involving None returning None -- I've seen a proposal made in all
>> earnestness requesting that None+42 == None, None() == None, and so
>> on. This Nonesense was wisely rejected
> 
> I agree with that decision. However, the behaviour you specify *is*

For the record, I was quoting Guido there.