Perhaps it will be addressed in 3.0... I hope True and False could become keywords eventually. That would stop silliness like: --------------------- In [1]: False=True
In [2]: not False Out[2]: False In [3]: False Out[3]: True --------------------- Nick V. John Roth wrote: > Saizan wrote: > > John Roth wrote: > > > > > The not operator and the bool() builtin produce > > > boolean results. Since bool is a subclass of int, > > > all the integer operations will remain integer > > > operations. This was done for backwards > > > compatability, and is unlikely to change in the 2.x > > > series. > > > > Ok, shame on me, I completely overlooked "not" and it surprises myself > > because it's not like I haven't used it, I just didn't see "not" as an > > operator, maybe because i can't find a __not__ method in bool class. > > (Is it hidden somewhere or is computed in some other way?) > > None of the boolean operators have magic methods. > PEP 335 addresses this issue, but it's been sitting > there for over two years with no action. It's probably > lost any traction it ever had. > > John Roth -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
