On Jul 30, 1:15 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All this discussion about "if x" has me wondering. I use it all the > time because a fully explicit test just seems redundant. But maybe it > does have some value in terms of readability and type checking. After > all, it is possible to forget whether something is a number or a list.
IMO, the only time I think "if x" is really dangerous is if you are using "if x" instead of "if x is None" to distinguish between None and a type that can have false values. Well, also it can backfire to use "if x" to check whether an iterable is empty since you can get a false positive if it's an iterator. Other than that it's maybe slighly less type safe to use explicit test. > Having said that, it would sure be nice to be able to write > > if myList is not empty: > > instead of > > if len(myList) != 0: I can agree with this. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
