On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 17:09, Christopher Barker <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was so used to have False for an empty iterable > I hate to be pedantic, but it doesn't work for iterables anyway:
Yes, I know that it does not work for iterators. This is another problem :-) > but If I really want to know if a sequence is empty, maybe if len(sequence) > == 0: is really a more clear test. But it's against PEP 8. > And by the way, numpy arrays are not Sequences as far as collections.abc is > concerned But it quacks like a sequence. IMHO numpy arrays should result as they implements collections.abc.Sequence, even if it's really not true. Like dict: >>> help(dict) Help on class dict in module builtins: class dict(object) [...] >>> issubclass(dict, MutableMapping) True _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/OUADLYPYJD2YGQH55BNNZFIYQKHNTGPK/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
