Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Rick Johnson wrote: > > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> Rick Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > But just because we have been trained that the implicit > > > > `if x:` is shorthand for the reasonable `if bool(x) == > > > > True:` > > > > > > That's not reasonable. bool(x) already returns a True or > > > False flag, comparing it to True is superfluous. > > > > So what? That's a simple matter of translating source code > > to byte code > > Who cares about the byte code? We don't read or write byte > code.
That was my point! Are you really this dense or just trolling me? > The *source code* you wrote is dumb. It displays an > appalling lack of understanding of Python's semantics, No, it is the Python semantics that are dumb, not my code. > and poor reasoning about even the simplest logical tests. Code is read more often than it is written, so if we must invest a few more keystrokes into a statement so that the _intent_ is _clear_, then so be it. And if such clarity produces sub-optimal byte code, well, that is a simple matter of redefining Python's translation procedure for the benefit of the _human_, not for the benefit of the _machine_, and certainly not for the sake of arbitrarily designed evaluation rules. Your priorities are all screwed- up, D'Aprano. > Here's another person's comments: > > "When I see someBool == true, I can't help but feel like > the programmer hasn't internalized the idea of evaluation, > which is a pretty fundamental deficiency." Like a canine, this "other person" has been trained for blind obedience, and obviously has no idea that source code is meant for human communication, and evaluation is arbitrarily defined. > You might as well write: [snip: absurd ramblings] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
