and [True,True] --> [True, True]?????

[Gerhard Häring]

Martin v. Löwis wrote:
>> Are they widespread? I haven't noticed, yet.
>>
>> I prefer to write it explicitly:
>>
>> if len(lst) > 0:
> 
> I prefer to test explicitly for the truth value of the
> list. I don't want to test whether the length of the list
> is greater than 0 (in fact, I don't care about the length
> property of the list at all) - I want to know whether the
> list is empty (or not empty). The Python syntax for this
> test is
> 
> if lst:
>   # not empty
> 
> or
> 
> if not list:
>   #empty
> [...]

You're right - as most of the time ;-) This makes a lot of sense to me.

The reason I preferred len(), btw., was only that len() make it clear
that the argument is a sequence.

Maybe I was just too annoyed by lots of Python code I read that looked
like this:

def foo(x, y, z):
    if x:
        ...
    else:
        ...

with poorly named variables where I didn't know what the heck the
variables are (bool, list, instance, ...). I hate it when I have to look
for the actual method calls to figure out what's going in. Better
variable naming and small comments would often help.

-- Gerhard