Josiah Carlson wrote:
Ron Adam <rrr@ronadam.com> wrote:
So I have no problem if it's ruled out on the grounds that 'there is not sufficient need'
Ok. YAGNI. Seriously. The performance advantage in real code, I guarantee, isn't measurable. Also, the inconsistancy is subjective, and I've never heard anyone complain before.
- Josiah
You are right. It's more cosmetic than actual. I basically said that from the start. Not as a direct complaint, no. It turns up more as a misunderstanding of how 'and' and 'or' work or a misunderstanding why bool returns what it does instead of what someone thinks it should, as in the thread that started this last week. This addresses that in a subtle indirect way by redefining bool as an operator. Weather or not it would actually improve the ease of understanding how python uses and interacts with boolean types and operators, I'm really not sure. As far as performance gain, I was thinking that in combination with making True and False constants, it might be greater. But it may very well not be. Maybe sometime in the near future I will try to test just how much of a difference it could make. In any case the making of True and False into constants is still an open python 3k issue. This was more exploratory and since nobody else jumped in and took it up, it seems it would be un-popular as well. But it's here for the record in any case. Cheers, Ron