On 2008-08-01, Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Antoon Pardon wrote: > >> I now have the following question for people who argue that "if x" >> is more polymorphic. I could subclass list, so that instances >> of this new sequence would always behave as true, even if they are >> empty. I could then rewrite my loop as follows: >> >> while 1: >> extra = produce() >> if not extra: >> break >> for el in extra: >> adjust_with(el) >> calculate() >> >> Is this second loop now more polymorphic as the first? > > It's more confusing since you've changed the standard behavior of a > standard type, which doesn't really have anything to do with > polymorphism. It's more confusing, if that's a benefit.
So you accept my point that "if x" can be less polymorphic and in fact can be more confusing than a more specific test. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
