On 31/03/14 19:28, Abe wrote:
I couldn't see anyone else give this, but I like
if None not in (a, b):
I did.
I am now considering:
if None not in (a,b):
or
if (a is not None) and (b is not None):
That's just
if not (a is None or b is None):
but you seem to have found your way.
However, I
> I couldn't see anyone else give this, but I like
> if None not in (a, b):
I did.
> I am now considering:
> if None not in (a,b):
> or
> if (a is not None) and (b is not None):
However, I decided to just turn the two parameters into one (sequence), since
they were logically grouped anyhow.
contact.tri...@gmail.com wrote:
> if (a, b) != (None, None):
> or
> if a != None != b:
>
> Preference? Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
I couldn't see anyone else give this, but I like
if None not in (a, b):
pass
Jeremy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roy Smith wrote:
Adding to the
confusion, many designs would use "active low" logic, which means a 1
was represented by a low voltage, and a 0 by a high voltage. So, you
quickly end up with gibberish like, "not active low clear nand not
active low enable clock".
There are ways of dealing wi
On 2014-03-30 13:21, Roy Smith wrote:
In article <5337b4e4$0$29994$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I think Johannes got it right: boolean logic is easier to reason about
when there is a minimum of "not"s.
I used to do a lot of digital logic design. In certain l
In article <5337b4e4$0$29994$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I think Johannes got it right: boolean logic is easier to reason about
> when there is a minimum of "not"s.
I used to do a lot of digital logic design. In certain logic families,
it's easier to build a
Gregory Ewing :
> a != b != c
>
> does *not* imply that a != c. At least it doesn't in Python; I've
> never seen any mathematicians write that, so I don't know what they
> would make of it.
Any resemblance between mathematics notation and Python is purely
coincidental. I must admit I had missed
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
>> The problem isn't that I can't see what the comparisons are. It makes
>> very good sense to bound a variable within constants; but you already
>> know exactly where 2 is on the number line, so asking "Is 2 between
>>
Chris Angelico writes:
> The problem isn't that I can't see what the comparisons are. It makes
> very good sense to bound a variable within constants; but you already
> know exactly where 2 is on the number line, so asking "Is 2 between
> these two variables" seems a bit odd. Maybe it's less so w
Roy Smith wrote:
But, if you show me
a != None != b:
my brain just goes into overload.
Chained comparisons get weird with not-equal operators.
If you see
a == b == c
then it implies that a == c, but
a != b != c
does *not* imply that a != c. At least it doesn't in
Python; I've never s
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:15:18 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Chained comparisons where you're checking a single variable against two
>> constants make perfect sense:
>>
>> 2 < x < 5
>>
>> Chained comparisons where you check a single const
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 19:54:09 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:09:45 AM UTC+5:30, Roy Smith wrote:
>> I have no particular problem with
>
>> x < 2 < y
>
>> because it fits the same pattern. But, if you show me
>
>> a != None != b:
>
>> my brain just goes into overload.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2014 13:15:18 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:07:20 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I certainly agree that things like
>>>
if a is not b is not None: ...
>>>
>>> belong in an obfuscated coding co
On March 29, 2014 9:43:00 PM CDT, Roy Smith wrote:
>In article <5337807b$0$29994$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> a is b is c is None
>
>And we are all together. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see
>how
>they fly.
I'm cryin'.
(Really, that was terrib
On Sunday, March 30, 2014 8:09:45 AM UTC+5:30, Roy Smith wrote:
> I have no particular problem with
> x < 2 < y
> because it fits the same pattern. But, if you show me
> a != None != b:
> my brain just goes into overload. Honestly, I don't even know what that
> means. My brain keeps tryin
In article <5337807b$0$29994$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> a is b is c is None
And we are all together. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how
they fly.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> Chained comparisons where you're checking a single variable against
> two constants make perfect sense:
>
> 2 < x < 5
>
> Chained comparisons where you check a single constant against two
> variables don't, so much:
>
> x < 2 < y
To me, chained comparison
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:36:55 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> And for cases where you have more than one or two things to test for
> None-itude, you could use
>
> if all(x is None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
> do_something_if_theyre_all_None()
>
> or
>
> if all(x is not None for x in [a, b, c, d])
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:07:20 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> I certainly agree that things like
>>
>>> if a is not b is not None: ...
>>
>> belong in an obfuscated coding contest.
>
> Apart from the fact that I got it wrong (that's what happen
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 17:07:20 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> I certainly agree that things like
>
>> if a is not b is not None: ...
>
> belong in an obfuscated coding contest.
Apart from the fact that I got it wrong (that's what happens when I post
at 6am after being up all night, thanks for the co
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Tim Chase
wrote:
> On 2014-03-30 10:17, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tim Chase
>> wrote:
>>> Though am I correct that your iteration tests for equality, while
>>> mine tests for identity? Also, my version bails early in the
>>> event
On 2014-03-30 10:17, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tim Chase
> wrote:
>> Though am I correct that your iteration tests for equality, while
>> mine tests for identity? Also, my version bails early in the
>> event quitting early is possible. That's particularly useful in
On 03/29/2014 02:01 PM, Johannes Bauer wrote:
On 29.03.2014 20:05, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:56:50 -0700, contact.trigon wrote:
if (a, b) != (None, None):
or
if a != None != b:
Preference? Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
if not (a is b is None): ...
Or if you prefer:
if a is
Thanks everyone; it has been very educational.
> Dave Angel:
> ...we'll find that two of the alternatives are not even equivalent.
That helped me realize (a,b) != (None, None) is not correct for the function.
It's a case where two parameters have None as the default argument. What I want
is to
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tim Chase wrote:
> Though am I correct that your iteration tests for equality, while
> mine tests for identity? Also, my version bails early in the event
> quitting early is possible. That's particularly useful in the case
> of doing something like
>
> if all(x
On 3/29/2014 2:56 PM, contact.tri...@gmail.com wrote:
if (a, b) != (None, None):
or
if a != None != b:
Preference? Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
if a is not None is not b
==
if a is not None and None is not b
==
if a is not None and b is not None
which is what I would write if not trying to be cut
In article ,
Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2014-03-29 18:41, Roy Smith wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
> >
> > > And for cases where you have more than one or two things to test
> > > for None-itude, you could use
> > >
> > > if all(x is None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
> > >
On 2014-03-29 18:41, Roy Smith wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
>
> > And for cases where you have more than one or two things to test
> > for None-itude, you could use
> >
> > if all(x is None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
> >do_something_if_theyre_all_None()
>
> I might ha
On Mar 29, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Tim Chase wrote:
> And for cases where you have more than one or two things to test for
> None-itude, you could use
>
> if all(x is None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
>do_something_if_theyre_all_None()
I might have written that as:
if set([a, b, c, d]) == set(None)
On 2014-03-29 17:07, Roy Smith wrote:
> > if (a is not None) or (b is not None):
> >
> > is immediately understandable by everyone?
>
> I agree with that. But
>
> > if (a, b) != (None, None):
>
> seems pretty straight-forward to me too. In fact, if anything, it
> seems easier to understan
On 29.03.2014 22:55, Johannes Bauer wrote:
>>> if (a is not None) or (b is not None):
>
> Yes, probably. I liked the original, too. If I were writing the code,
> I'd probably try to aim to invert the condition though and simply do
>
> if (a is None) and (b is None)
>
> Which is pretty easy to u
On 29.03.2014 22:07, Roy Smith wrote:
> I agree with that. But
>
>> if (a, b) != (None, None):
>
> seems pretty straight-forward to me too. In fact, if anything, it seems
> easier to understand than
>
>> if (a is not None) or (b is not None):
Yes, probably. I liked the original, too. If I w
Roy Smith Wrote in message:
> In article ,
> Johannes Bauer wrote:
>
>> On 29.03.2014 20:05, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:56:50 -0700, contact.trigon wrote:
>> >
>> >> if (a, b) != (None, None):
>> >> or
>> >> if a != None != b:
>> >>
>> >> Preference? Pros? Cons? Altern
In article ,
Johannes Bauer wrote:
> On 29.03.2014 20:05, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:56:50 -0700, contact.trigon wrote:
> >
> >> if (a, b) != (None, None):
> >> or
> >> if a != None != b:
> >>
> >> Preference? Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
> >
> > if not (a is b is None): ...
On 29.03.2014 20:05, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:56:50 -0700, contact.trigon wrote:
>
>> if (a, b) != (None, None):
>> or
>> if a != None != b:
>>
>> Preference? Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
>
> if not (a is b is None): ...
>
> Or if you prefer:
>
> if a is not b is not None: ..
> Do you actually want to check for arbitrary objects which may claim to
> equal None, or do you want to check for objects which are None?
Arbitrary objects are not a concern.
> if not (a is b is None): ...
>
> if a is not b is not None: ...
Thanks for the examples.
--
https://mail.python.o
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> if not (a is b is None): ...
>
> Or if you prefer:
>
> if a is not b is not None: ...
>>> 1 is not 1 is not None
False
So definitely the former!
ciao, lele.
--
nickname: Lele Gaifax | Quando vivrò di quello che ho pensato ieri
real: Emanuele Gaifas | comincerò ad ave
On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 11:56:50 -0700, contact.trigon wrote:
> if (a, b) != (None, None):
> or
> if a != None != b:
>
> Preference? Pros? Cons? Alternatives?
Do you actually want to check for arbitrary objects which may claim to
equal None, or do you want to check for objects which are None?
Nea
38 matches
Mail list logo
