Names changed to protect the guilty

Sat Oct 7 07:58:31 EDT 2006

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:29:34 -0700, John Machin wrote:

> 
> MonkeeSage wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 8:02 pm, "MonkeeSage" <MonkeeS... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > it is clearer to you to make the condition explicit ("blah not False"),
>>
>> "blah not False" -> "blah is False"
> 
> Whichever way your team wants to interpret it, d00d.
> 
> Please consider whether you should be writing "(blah is False) is
> True", that would be more explicit.

Puh-lease! Get it right!

It should be "((blah is False) is True) is True".

-- 
Steve.