1) I didn&#39;t say that the option to edit __ne__ should be removed, only that it&#39;d be both more consistent and convenient to change the meaning to something relative by default.<br><br>2) So long as the old code defines __ne__, which I&#39;m guessing is the code that you&#39;re telling me will break, I still don&#39;t see how this will cause any issues whatsoever. I mean, I guess it could mess up some people who were using &#39;!=&#39; to be *intentionally* synonymous with &#39;is not&#39;, but that&#39;s awfully contrived for a language that&#39;s supposed to be well-known for being straight-forward and easily readable.<br>
<br>-Constantine<br>