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

Erik Max Francis max at
Thu Jul 31 04:05:48 CEST 2008

Russ P. wrote:

> On Jul 30, 1:07 am, Erik Max Francis <m... at> wrote:
>> Russ P. wrote:
>>> Oh, Lordy. I understand perfectly well how boolean tests, __len__, and
>>> __nonzero__ work in Python. It's very basic stuff. You can quit
>>> patronizing me (and Carl too, I'm sure).
>> You suggested a syntax for testing non-emptiness (`x is not empty`)
>> which indicated a profound misunderstanding of what the `is` operator does.
>> You then acknowledged that there might be a problem because of the
>> implication if the `is` operator and weren't sure whether it would work
>> or not:
> Oh, my. I wrote something like, "It would sure be nice to be able to
> write
> if x is not empty:
> because it reads like natural language. Immediately after I posted it,
> I thought, "oh, I'll bet some idiot takes that as a serious proposal."
> Sure enough, some idiot did just that almost immediately.

Yes, all people are idiots for reading what you wrote, reading your 
later realization that it was wrong, and taking both at face value. 
I'll be sure never to make that mistake again!

> And he is
> still patronizing me for it.

No, I'm not patronizing you for your initial misstatement.  I'm mocking 
you for your pathetic and transparent attempt to backpedal away from it. 
  Just give it up, already.

Erik Max Francis && max at &&
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
   Drifting from woman-who-tries misconstrued / Shifting to woman-wise
    -- Lamya

More information about the Python-list mailing list