Isn't bool __invert__ behaviour "strange"?

[Bjoern Schliessmann]

Saizan wrote:

> (However (not x) whould be as annoying as 1-x even if a little
> more readable (if you consider lispish parentheses readable):
> Input expression: (not (not x)&(not y)!(not (z|v)))

Did you notice that you use bitwise AND and OR here? How about

not (not x) and (not y) or (not (z or v))

(or what is "!" supposed to mean?)

BTW, not's binding is stronger than and's (IIRC). So 

not (not x) and (not y)

mutates to

x and (not y)

Regards,


Björn

-- 
BOFH excuse #392:

It's union rules. There's nothing we can do about it. Sorry.