On Jul 15, 9:15 pm, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, instead of "if stack:" or "if bool(stack):", we could use > "if stack.isempty():". This line tells us explicitly that stack is a > container. Or instead of "if dist:" or "if bool(dist):" we could use > "if dist == 0:". This tells us explicitly that stack is a number. > Supposedly this makes it easier to read code. It certainly reads more > like English! :) Yes, but this approach involves adding new "value testing" methods to every object. Whilst these specific methods would probably inject more comprehension than using bool, i believe the bool function can handle this problem better due to its monolithic and generic nature. No need to memorize which method is needed for strings, or integers, or lists, etc... just use bool and everything works. As for the semantics, we should let the object decide how to respond to a __bool__() request. But what's the point of having a bool function if we refuse to use it correctly? We force str, int, and float conversion all day, but not the bool? Where is the consistency? Where is the bool!? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
