Re: [False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

In message , Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:40:47 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> In message <25f4735b-52a2-4d53-9097- >> e623655ca...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, bdb112 wrote: >> >>> Is there any obvious reason why >>> [False,True] and [True,True] >>> gives [True, Tr

Re: [False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:40:47 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > In message <25f4735b-52a2-4d53-9097- > e623655ca...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, bdb112 wrote: > >> Is there any obvious reason why >> [False,True] and [True,True] >> gives [True, True] > > This kind of confusion is why condition

Re: [False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

In message <25f4735b-52a2-4d53-9097- e623655ca...@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, bdb112 wrote: > Is there any obvious reason why > [False,True] and [True,True] > gives [True, True] This kind of confusion is why conditional constructs should not accept any values other than True and False

Re: [False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

En Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:03:28 -0300, bdb112 escribió: Is there any obvious reason why [False,True] and [True,True] gives [True, True] Yes: short-circuit evaluation. [False,True] and [True,True] is *not* an element-by-element operation, it's a simple expression involving two objects (two li

Re: [False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:03 AM, bdb112 wrote: > Is there any obvious reason why > [False,True] and [True,True] > gives [True, True] Well, whether the reason is obvious, I do not know, but the way and seems to be implemented is: X and Y = * X if the boolean value of X is false * Y if the boolean

[False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

Is there any obvious reason why [False,True] and [True,True] gives [True, True] Python 2.5.2 (r252:60911, Feb 21 2008, 13:11:45) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list