I support PEP 326

[A. Lloyd Flanagan]

"John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> wrote in message news:<10105bn3bsi63c9 at news.supernews.com>...

> Just in case anyone can't find the PEP - it's the one that proposes
> specific objects that will always sort highest and lowest.
> 
> I'm mildly in favor; it seems to be useful for some cases, and it
> also seems easy enough to do. Of course, it would make None
> the second smallest object.
> 
> John Roth

+1 on the PEP.  The names Max and Min seem fine to me, but I'm not
married to them.

What would be the consequence of making Min and None compare equal? 
Then the "None as second lowest" issue goes away.  I can't think of an
example where that would cause problems, but there probably are
some...