PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Alex Martelli]

Bengt Richter wrote:
        ...
>>implementation.  One can of course do much better than that:
>>
>>        [x for x in (y,)][0]
>>
> Yes, I thought of that one too, while I was out ;-)
> 
> I think that one is actually _more_ "horrid" ;-) Why? Because it depends
> on what IMO should _not_ work and my example depends on what reasonably
> IMO _should_ work (if optimization issues did not take practical
> precedence). IMO letting a binding side effect escape the scope of a list
> comprehension is a flaw (and I'm guessing that it will be fixed). In

Sorry [not really:-)] but your O (and mine) does not matter as much as 
GvR's and the Language Reference Manual.

> contrast, locals() returns a purported dictionary of local bindings, and
> IMO it's reasonable to expect to be able to modify them through dictionary
> operations, unless warned off conspicously.

Ditto: the warning in the docs IS quite conspicuous.


> Or perhaps I should say was: I saw another post from Aahz, which said,
> """
>     I define "assignment" in Python as being precisely equal to "=".
> """
> So that changes the ball game and clinches it. He's perfectly right,

He's wrong only in his choice of pronoun -- it's not _him_ defining
what terms means in Python, but the Language Reference manual.

I always prefer to mention binding and rebinding (the EFFECT of
what we're doing), but when I mention the _tool_ often used to
perform such effect I call it assignment when it is, only.


Alex