Mark Dickinson added the comment:
I realise this was opened as a joke, but I actually consider this suggestion to
be unridiculous. I've never felt comfortable with code that does if x
rather than if x != 0.0 for x a float.
What really makes this a no-go in Python is the equality between
New submission from Alexander Belopolsky:
The rationale for making this change is that the current behaviour converts a
stylistic problem in checking values against a sentinel via bool(value)
instead of value is not None into a subtle data driven behavioural bug that
only occurs exactly at
Donald Stufft added the comment:
Being passive aggressive is pointless, if you disagree then discuss on the
actual issue or on the mailing list thread. Opening up random issues because
you're mad just makes you look like a child.
--
nosy: +dstufft
resolution: - invalid
status: open -
Changes by Alexander Belopolsky alexander.belopol...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: -belopolsky
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20855
___
___
Changes by Yury Selivanov yselivanov...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +yselivanov
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20855
___
___
Alexander Belopolsky added the comment:
I thought literal copying was enough of a hint to humor without a smiley in the
title.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20855
___
Tim Peters added the comment:
Excellent idea! But then we should change bool(0.1) to be False too ;-)
--
nosy: +tim.peters
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue20855
___
Nick Coghlan added the comment:
Alexander, my goal is to flip the default assumption in the time discussion. It
is clear from the documentation that the current behaviour is intentional, but
there is no concrete *use case* given for it. This is in stark contrast to the
other types where
