Python 3.0 - is this true?

[Robin Becker]

Robin Becker wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
> .........intain).
>>
>> Of course, using SQL against a traditional RDBMS will not return rows
>> with NULL values for salary in a query such as
>>
>>   SELECT name, address WHERE salary < 10000
>>
>> precisely *because* NULL (absence of value) does not compare with any
>> value. So you could say that 3.0 is forcing us to acknowledge database
>> reality ;-)
>>
>> regards
>>  Steve
> on the other hand I find it odd that
> 
> cmp(None,None) fails in Python 3 when None==None returns True.
> 
> In fact it seems that because None is non-comparable I need to write at 
> least three of the comparisons at least as two only leads to errors. So 
> now even though I can sort my objects with None I still cannot sort 
> [None,None]
> 
........
In fact I'm probably being over optimistic here as even though my silly 
[a,None].sort() works it's unlikely in general that an arbitrary list of Nones & 
A()s will sort. I think a single None will sort in a list of arbitrary length, 
but not two or more. How's that for special cases?
-- 
Robin Becker