I think they actually read like they would mean slightly different things, which would make them existing as aliases confusing. I read `if not val` as "If val isn't true" but i would read `if no val` as "if val does not exist" On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:07 PM Daniel Okey-Okoro <danielokeyokoro@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that adding a `no` keyword as an alias for `not` would make for more readable, simple, pythonic code.
Take the below:
``` if not val: do_thing_because_value_is_falsy() ```
could be (is actually understood as):
``` if no val: do_thing_because_value_is_falsy() ```
I think this PEP is a work-around for an underlying subtle issue with how the `not` operator is used.
It has two use-cases:
1. as a NOT gate for producing opposite boolean values
``` opposite = not regular ```
2. as a sort of ".is_falsy()" checker; when used with an if statement.
like the first example.
This PEP would make the difference between the two usecases explicit.
Thoughts?
Best Intentions, Daniel Okey-Okoro. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
-- CALVIN SPEALMAN SENIOR QUALITY ENGINEER cspealma@redhat.com M: +1.336.210.5107 [image: https://red.ht/sig] <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>