[Python-checkins] CVS: python/nondist/peps pep-0285.txt,1.17,1.18

[Guido van Rossum]

Update of /cvsroot/python/python/nondist/peps
In directory usw-pr-cvs1:/tmp/cvs-serv14827

Modified Files:
	pep-0285.txt 
Log Message:
Clarify once more that "if []" will remain valid Python forever.


Index: pep-0285.txt
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/python/python/nondist/peps/pep-0285.txt,v
retrieving revision 1.17
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -C2 -d -r1.17 -r1.18
*** pep-0285.txt	1 Apr 2002 15:24:54 -0000	1.17
--- pep-0285.txt	3 Apr 2002 00:58:01 -0000	1.18
***************
*** 116,119 ****
--- 116,131 ----
         is considered false and a non-empty one is considered true."
  
+     8) Should we strive to require that Boolean operations (like "if",
+        "and", "not") have a bool as an argument in the future, so that
+        for example "if []:" would become illegal and would have to be
+        writen as "if bool([]):" ???
+ 
+     => No!!!  Some people believe that this is how a language with a
+        Boolean type should behave.  Because it was brought up, others
+        have worried that I might agree with this position.  Let me
+        make my position on this quite clear.  This is not part of the
+        PEP's motivation and I don't intend to make this change.  (See
+        also the section "Clarification" below.)
+ 
  
  Rationale