syntax question: "<>" and "!=" operators

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:08:08 -0500, David Mertz, Ph.D. <mertz at gnosis.cx> wrote:
>| danb_83 at yahoo.com (Dan Bishop) wrote:
>|> Even for complex numbers, for which "less than or greater than" is
>|> meaningless?
>
>Just van Rossum <just at xs4all.nl> wrote previously:
>|It doesn't have that meaning for me anymore, it simple means "not equal"
>|to me. It is an abstract symbol. I really don't believe we can discuss
>|this on any other level than "I prefer x because I'm used to it"...
>
>In the end, Just is right.  People get used to different things.
>
>Nonetheless, I think of the natural language semantics of the
>symbols--or maybe better "insinuations"--prefers '<>' to '!='.  The
>(good) one suggests "is greater than or less than (but not equal to)".
>I know that not everything is technically in an order relation, but it
>still "makes sense" at a first approximation.

No it doesn't. It's implying that you can only test for equality two
tings that are both magnetudes, by implying that if a != b then
either a < b or a > b.

-- 
<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if