On 9/21/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 9/20/05, Michael Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [SNIP] > >> I _like_ the explanation of 'and' and 'or' as they are now. They are > >> basically control flow constructs -- and have to be to get > >> short-circuiting to work -- and adding a coercion to bool at the end > >> seems to add complexity, not reduce it (on some levels, anyway). > >> > > > > If you change the definition of 'and' and 'or' to be boolean > > comparison operators (as Raymond is proposing) and not as control flow > > constructs then is it really that complicated? > > If you eliminate the short circuiting behaviour of 'or' and 'and' the > mobs will be after you with torches and pitchforks (and I'll be with > them). >
I am not suggesting that at all. I would put myself on a pike first before the mob got there. =) > > I think it would actually simplify things very slightly since you > > just say a boolean is returned instead of the last executed > > expression by the operator. > > You might as well have 'and' be a builtin, then -- or do I misread > you? > I think you might be misreading me, but since Guido seems to have made the decision that 'and' and 'or' are not changing there is no need to try to clarify. > >> > P.S. Simplifying "and" and "or" may create a need to introduce a > >> > conditional operator but that is a discussion for another day. > >> > >> ... which was in the past, I thought. > > > > It was, but changing 'and' and 'or' does tweak the usefulness of a > > conditional operator. > > Another reason why it's a bad idea :) <wink> > =) -Brett _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
