On 7/15/2012 12:19 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
(For the record, I can only think of one trap for the unwary: time
objects are false at *exactly* midnight.)
Ugh, that's irritating. I can't think of any scenario where I would
ever want the semantics "if timeval (is not midnight):". This
When printing time tables, midnight may be either 24:00 or 0:00,
depending on whether it is the end or start of a journey. That could, of
course, be done by explicit if time == midnight: rather than if not time:.
Whether to change the current behavior was discussed on python-ideas a
couple of months ago. I believe inertia and back-compatibity and the
rare use case won.
> reinforces the point that if you only want to test whether you have
> None, you should use "is not None" rather than relying on __bool__.
Right.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
