Boolean tests [was Re: Attack a sacred Python Cow]

Russ P. Russ.Paielli at gmail.com
Wed Jul 30 08:39:45 CEST 2008


On Jul 29, 11:36 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
> Russ P. wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 11:09 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm getting this sneaking suspicion that you guys are all putting us on.
>
> > As I said in an earlier post, I realize that this would only work if
> > there were only one copy of "empty" (as there is only one copy of
> > "None"). I don't know off hand if that is feasible or not.
>
> It's only feasible if you change what `is` means for this one bizarre
> use case, which isn't a good idea.
>
> > You reply reeks of the kind of pedantic snobbishness that makes me
> > sick.
>
> Well, if understanding what the `is` operator means is pedantic
> snobbishness, then hey, go right ahead.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis && m... at alcyone.com &&http://www.alcyone.com/max/
>   San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
>    The doors of Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical.
>     -- Nikos Kazantzakis

I fully understand what the "is" operator is, and I never had any
problem with it at all, thank you.

But then again, I suppose that depends on what the meaning of "is"
is ...



More information about the Python-list mailing list