Alex Martelli aleax at aleax.it
Thu Nov 13 08:49:17 EST 2003

• Previous message (by thread): True inconsistency in Python
• Next message (by thread): True inconsistency in Python
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

Borcis wrote:

> Scott Chapman wrote:
> 
>> 
>> if var == True: # only works if var is 1
>>   blah
>> 
>> ' Must use:
>> 
>> if var: # works if var is not 0
>>   blah
> 
> there's the equivalent, and more explicit :
> 
> if bool(var)==True : blah

Why stop there?  If adding one useless and redundant check is
better, surely having more will be merrier and merrier...:

if ( bool(var) == True) == True: doubleblah

oh wait, we should add ANOTHER level of uselessness...:

if (( bool(var) == True) == True) == True: tripleblah

oh wait...


"if var:" is the Pythonic way.  You could argue that each
level of "== True" makes it ``more explicit'', but I just
consider them all equally silly in their utter redundancy.

[[ we TOLD Guido people would start on this absurd path, when
   he added bool, True, and False, but he wouldn't listen...
]]


Alex

---

• Previous message (by thread): True inconsistency in Python
• Next message (by thread): True inconsistency in Python
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

More information about the Python-list mailing list