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