Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:18:30 -0400, Steve Holden wrote:
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
Please! For extra certainty, you should write that as:
((int(3) > int(4)) == True) == True
Explicit is better than sensible, yes?
*wink*
Your example, even with the *wink*, is stupid. The language requires 3
to be an integer, 4 to be an integer.
The point I was show is with respect to a returned variable (like from a
function or method? *wink* *wink*).
For example, if you expect an open file handle, but get a NoneType
because you didn't really open a file (having given a bad name or maybe
didn't have permission to open a file), then it would be best to test
the type of return object before using it. Then you program could handle
the error gracefully (*wink* *wink* *wink*).
As much as I love Python, it's ability to morph an object type can be a
pain. Testing before using can prevent a program from Error-ing out.
Steven Howe
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
