Steven Howe wrote: > Alan Isaac wrote: [type comparison stuff] > I love scripting languages ... but sometimes an explicit evaluation that > one would find in > a compiled language is better.
"better" in what sense? > Which is why I suggested using the explicit type(x) == types.NoneType as > opposed to > x is None > > This seems to go entirely against the spirit of the language. It's about as sensible as writing (3 > 4) == True The language *guarantees* that there is only one instance of types.NoneType, so why not just test for it directly? Among other things this avoids the need for an explicit import of the types library just so you can access the namespace. For extra marks, please explain why you prefer type(x) == type(None) # or types.NoneType to type(x) is type(None) The canonical test is, as has already been explained, x is None and to use anything else hinders the readability of your code. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com Skype: holdenweb http://del.icio.us/steve.holden Recent Ramblings http://holdenweb.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
