Any list larger than any number by way of dimensions?

[Dan Bishop]

pwmiller1 at adelphia.net (Paul Miller) wrote in message news:<2e363c08.0406301921.4c4681f9 at posting.google.com>...
> David Fraser <davidf at sjsoft.com> wrote in message news:<cbu24m$pv2$1 at ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> 
> [re: None < number < list < string < tuple ]
> > > 
> > > Which is consistent but wrong.
> > 
> > It's consistent but arbitrary. How can you say its wrong? It does what 
> > its defined to do.
> 
> It may be right, but it's probably not The Right Thing To Do(tm).

That's what I meant: It's "wrong" in that it's more often a source for
bugs than a useful behavior.  Just like old-style division.

> The
> main problem /I/ have with it is that complex numbers represent an
> exception (no pun intended) to this rule among all the built-in types
> in that they don't compare to anything.

That's not true.  Complex numbers compare to strings, tuples, lists,
Exceptions, xranges, functions, and pretty much everything else. 
Except numbers, of course.