Is it really good?

[Grant Edwards]

In article <slrnb1n3p0.n2l.grante at localhost.localdomain>, Grant Edwards wrote:
> In article <mailman.1041983572.25078.python-list at python.org>, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>> 
>>     Nadav> Can someone explain why python does not raise NameError in the
>>     Nadav> first test line b[e]low.
>> 
>>     >>> 2 == 3 is good
>>     0     # ????????????????????????
>> 
>> Chained operations.  The above expression is effectively
>> 
>>     (2 == 3) and (3 is good)
>>
>> The first is false, so the second is never evaluated.
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> That logic would seem to indicate that
>  
>   0 is 0
>   
> should false, since the first term is false, the "is" short-circuits and
> returns false. It doesn't:

Never mind...  I missed the whole chained operations point completely.  I
have a really hard time remembering that

  2 == 3 is good
  
evaluates as _neither_

  (2 == 3) is good
nor
  2 == (3 is good)


> All this still doesn't explain why
> 
>  (2==3) is good
>  
> doesn't evaluate the right hand side of the "is".... 

Except that it does:

>>> (2 == 3) is good
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in ?
NameError: name 'good' is not defined

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Do I hear th'
                                  at               SPINNING of various
                               visi.com            WHIRRING, ROUND, and WARM
                                                   WHIRLOMATICS?!