On Jul 30, 1:50 am, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 30, 1:58 am, "Russ P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > > I mean in general. I wouldn't spell it like that. I would prefer if > empty(x), with an __empty__ method. (And support __nonzero__ aka > __bool__ dropped completely.) > > Carl Banks
An __empty__ method could return True for my social life, ha ha. Does __nonzero__ just mean __nonempty__? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
