PEP 285: Adding a bool type
johnroth at ameritech.net
Sat Mar 30 13:31:42 CET 2002
"Robin Becker" <robin at jessikat.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2zRcLUAVjXp8EwVv at jessikat.fsnet.co.uk...
> In article <mailman.1017466974.6751.python-list at python.org>, Guido van
> Rossum <guido at python.org> writes
> This pretty much seems unwanted to me. Done purely for political
> correctness. Whenever new keywords are discussed the Gods are against
> them. Now we have to accept new constants true, false + a new type.
> Silly like all those programmers who have constants like one and zero
> ten in code.
Disagree strongly. One of the things that makes a programming
language pleasant is that you can **depend** on certain constructions.
Having a bool type, properly implemented, is IMHO definitely in
line with that - I've always thought that 0 and 1 were a kludge put
into languages by designers that were too lazy to do it right.
> If we get bools can sets be far behind, and what about quaternions and
> abelian groups?
I could see sets as part of the core language, if a couple of issues
with respect to notation could be cleared up. I don't see the other
two, but then, I don't really think that complex numbers should have
been part of the core language either.
It depends on what can be used by most applications. Sets and
enums are generally useful. Complex, quaternians and so forth
are application specific things.
More information about the Python-list