PEP 289: universal and existential operators

Jess Austin austin at
Thu Nov 6 14:52:54 CET 2003

roel.mathys at (rm) wrote in message news:<9f76ee00.0311051257.45461381 at>...
> maybe allfalse() should be included aswell?
> rm

allfalse() isn't necessary; it's equivalent to "not any()", "not
exists()", "not anytrue()", or whatever depending on what is decided
for the existential form.  Similarly, anyfalse() is equivalent to "not
all()", "not forall()", etc.  Actually, that last example sounds
terrible, so I'm withdrawing my "forall" suggestion for the universal

In the interests of orthogonality, I'd advise against the {any,
all}false() forms.  It seems like the consensus is "all" and "any". 
This makes sense to me, and I think this will be a great addition to
the language.


More information about the Python-list mailing list