Russ P. wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:33 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:15 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
But I guess that could only work if there were only one empty list
that represents all empty lists (as there is only one actual "None").
I don't know if that makes sense or not.
It really doesn't, since it presumably wouldn't apply to just list
types. There are plenty of other sequence types: such as tuples,
strings, or even arbitrary custom types. Emptiness is a test for the
value of an object, not a test for whether it is identical to another
object, so this is a very misleading of the `is` operator, bordering on
abuse.
This syntax would make far less sense than the existing Boolean test.
--
Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
The doors of Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical.
-- Nikos Kazantzakis
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
