On Jul 28, 8:15 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:22:37 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: > > On Jul 28, 10:00 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > >> Cutting to the crux of the discussion... > > >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:45:26 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: > >> > I want something where "if x" will do but a simple explicit test > >> > won't. > > >> Explicit tests aren't simple unless you know what type x is. If x could > >> be of any type, you can't write a simple test. Does x have a length? Is > >> it a number? Maybe it's a fixed-length circular length, and the length > >> is non-zero even when it's empty? Who knows? How many cases do you need > >> to consider? > > > Use case, please. I'm asking for code, not arguments. Please give me a > > piece of code where you can write "if x" that works but a simple > > explicit test won't. > > I gave you a piece of code, actual code from one of my own projects. If > you wouldn't accept that evidence then, why would you accept it now?
I would accept as "evidence" something that satisfies my criteria, which your example did not: it could have easily (and more robustly) been written with a simple explicit test. I am looking for one that can't. You keep bringing up this notion of "more complex with no benefit", which I'm simply not interested in talking about that at this time, and I won't respond to any of your points. I am seeking the answer to one question: whether "if x" can usefully do something a simple explicit test can't. Everyone already knows that "if x" requires fewer keystrokes and parses to fewer nodes. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
