Python 3.0 - is this true?

[Robin Becker]

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Sure:
>>
>> if len(L1) == len(L2):
>>     return sorted(L1) == sorted(L2)  # check whether two lists contain
>> the same elements
>> else:
>>     return False
>>
>> It doesn't really matter here what the result of the sorts actually is
>> as long as the algorithm leads to the same result for all permutations
>> on L1 ( and L2 ).
> 
> Unfortunately, for many releases, the list's sort algorithm would not
> provide that property. Release for release, new cases where found where
> the builtin ordering was not transitive (i.e. you get a < b and b < c,
> but not a < c). With funny definitions of __cmp__ in some classes, you
> can still get this today.
.......

In old style python there was a sort of standard behaviour whereby None was 
comparable with most of the other primitive types. That at least allowed us to 
performs various stupid tricks with data. Unfortunately it seems that None is no 
longer orderable even against itself.

Is there any advice on how to create N/A float or integer or string values? I 
assume the DB api will continue to return None for null columns no matter what 
the column type.

Presumably I can always define my own comparator which makes None < x for all 
x!=None.
-- 
Robin Becker