Dylan Baker writes:
> [ Unknown signature status ]
> Quoting Martin Peres (2017-10-20 00:38:18)
>> On 19/10/17 19:50, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> > Quoting Martin Peres (2017-10-19 07:17:25)
>> >> On 30/09/17 23:42, Dylan Baker wrote:
>> >>> Actually CC'ing him this time
>>
On 19/10/17 19:50, Dylan Baker wrote:
Quoting Martin Peres (2017-10-19 07:17:25)
On 30/09/17 23:42, Dylan Baker wrote:
Actually CC'ing him this time
Quoting Dylan Baker (2017-09-29 20:29:34)
Quoting Arkadiusz Hiler (2017-09-26 03:27:50)
Because in Python we have `bool([]}) == False`,
Quoting Martin Peres (2017-10-19 07:17:25)
> On 30/09/17 23:42, Dylan Baker wrote:
> > Actually CC'ing him this time
> >
> > Quoting Dylan Baker (2017-09-29 20:29:34)
> >> Quoting Arkadiusz Hiler (2017-09-26 03:27:50)
> >>> Because in Python we have `bool([]}) == False`, providing empty test
On 30/09/17 23:42, Dylan Baker wrote:
Actually CC'ing him this time
Quoting Dylan Baker (2017-09-29 20:29:34)
Quoting Arkadiusz Hiler (2017-09-26 03:27:50)
Because in Python we have `bool([]}) == False`, providing empty test
list resulted in hitting the same code path as not providing it
Actually CC'ing him this time
Quoting Dylan Baker (2017-09-29 20:29:34)
> Quoting Arkadiusz Hiler (2017-09-26 03:27:50)
> > Because in Python we have `bool([]}) == False`, providing empty test
> > list resulted in hitting the same code path as not providing it at all,
> > meaning that we run
Quoting Arkadiusz Hiler (2017-09-26 03:27:50)
> Because in Python we have `bool([]}) == False`, providing empty test
> list resulted in hitting the same code path as not providing it at all,
> meaning that we run everything.
>
> Let's just exit early with an appropriate message instead.
>
> This
Because in Python we have `bool([]}) == False`, providing empty test
list resulted in hitting the same code path as not providing it at all,
meaning that we run everything.
Let's just exit early with an appropriate message instead.
This will get rid of the rather surprising behavior and will