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

[Carl Banks]

On Jul 30, 10:05 pm, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
> Russ P. wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 1:07 am, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> 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!

I thought it was obvious that he was paraphrasing.  I also think that,
among the people who took it literally, those who are not an ass would
have accepted his explanation that he was paraphrasing it and moved
on, rather than rubbing it in.

If you recall, I agreed with his statement.  Would you like to claim
that I don't understand the fundamentals of Python?


Carl Banks