Home Original page

[Python-ideas] bool(datetime.time(0, 0))

Nick Coghlan ncoghlan at gmail.com
Tue May 8 12:08:07 CEST 2012 
The problem is not using boolean evaluation - it's assuming that boolean
evaluation is defined as "x is not None". Doing so introduces a completely
unnecessary dependency on the type of "x". I'm frankly astonished that so
many people seem to think it's a reasonable thing to do.

--
Sent from my phone, thus the relative brevity :)
On May 8, 2012 8:01 PM, "Antoine Pitrou" <solipsis at pitrou.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2012 17:02:04 +1000
> Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMO, you've completely misdiagnosed the source of that bug. Never
> > *ever* rely on boolean evaluation when testing against None.
>
> Nick, that's just plain silly. If we didn't want people to rely on
> boolean evaluation, we wouldn't define __bool__ at all (or we would
> make it return a random value).
>
> Regards
>
> Antoine.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/attachments/20120508/cf7f8ec9/attachment.html>
More information about the Python-ideas mailing list