Home Original page

checking if a list is empty

rusi rustompmody at gmail.com
Sat May 14 13:43:31 EDT 2011 
On May 14, 8:55 pm, Chris Angelico <ros... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:47 AM, rusi <rustompm... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > So since
> > [1,2,3] is one way of writing True (lets call it True3)
> > and [1,2] is another (call it True2)
> > then we have True3 == True2 is False
>
> > But since according to Steven (according to Python?) True3 *is the
> > same* as True2
> > we get
> >  False
> > = [1,2,3] == [1,2]
> > = True3  == True2
> > = True == True
> > = True
>
> Okay, I see what you're doing here.
>
> http://www.rinkworks.com/ithink/search.cgi?words=compress

LOL -- Thanks for that.

But it seems you did not get the moral? Spelt out: "Beware of lossy
compression!"
[Which is also the moral of my 'proof']

>
> When you condense a whole lot of information down to just two states,
> True and False, *obviously* there'll be a huge amount that fits into
> one or the other without being identical. It's not an argument for
> whether [1,2,3] ought to be True or ought to be False. You could make
> the exact same argument if they evaluated to False. You have proven
> nothing and just wasted your time proving it.
>
> Chris Angelico
More information about the Python-list mailing list