any() and all() on empty list?
stijndesaeger at gmail.com
Wed Mar 29 11:01:00 CEST 2006
> I'm completely on board with the semantics for any(). But all() bothers
> me. If all() receives an empty list, it will return True, and I don't
> like that. To me, all() should be a more restrictive function than any(),
> and it bothers me to see a case where any() returns False but all()
> returns True.
Who should we call to report this fallacy? GvR? Goedel? Tarski? no,
wait... Frege ! or wait... actually, I think that must be Aristotle.
Sorry Aristotle, the ol' syllogisms have to go.
All silliness aside, the meaning of all() in python corresponds just
fine with "all" in both language and logic.
More information about the Python-list