1) I didn't say that the option to edit __ne__ should be removed, only that
it'd be both more consistent and convenient to change the meaning to
something relative by default.

2) So long as the old code defines __ne__, which I'm guessing is the code
that you're telling me will break, I still don't see how this will cause any
issues whatsoever. I mean, I guess it could mess up some people who were
using '!=' to be *intentionally* synonymous with 'is not', but that's
awfully contrived for a language that's supposed to be well-known for being
straight-forward and easily readable.

-Constantine