I write mostly Python these days, but agree with op. The comparables implementat...

js2 · 2025-11-07T22:03:22 1762553002

It's virtually the same in Python if you wrote it explicitly:

    def <=>(other)
        [major, minor, patch] <=> [other.major, other.minor, other.patch]
    end

vs:

    def __lt__(self, other):
        return (self.major, self.minor, self.patch) < (other.major, other.minor, other.patch)

Then use the `total_ordering` decorator to provide the remaining rich comparison methods.

That said, it's a little annoying Python didn't keep __cmp__ around since there's no direct replacement that's just as succinct and what I did above is a slight fib: you still may need to add __eq__() as well.

disgruntledphd2 · 2025-11-08T10:17:15 1762597035

I know, but the ability to use symbols to define the comparator is super, super cool, as opposed to the horrendously ugly lt dunder method.

zahlman · 2025-11-08T01:18:32 1762564712

> Then use the `total_ordering` decorator to provide the remaining rich comparison methods.

While we're here, worth highlighting `cmp_to_key` as well for `sorted` etc. calls.

> it's a little annoying Python didn't keep __cmp__ around since there's no direct replacement that's just as succinct

The rationale offered at the time (https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html) was admittedly weak, but at least this way there isn't confusion over what happens if you try to use both ways (because one of them just isn't a way any more).