On 2009-04-15, John O'Hagan <m...@johnohagan.com> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009, Mark Dickinson wrote: >> On Apr 14, 7:21 pm, Luis Alberto Zarrabeitia Gomez <ky...@uh.cu> >> >> wrote: >> > It's more than that. Python's following the rules here. Maybe it could be >> > documented better, for those without a background in logic/discrete >> > mathematics, but not changed. >> >> Agreed. >> >> I'd like to guess that in 93.7% of cases, when a programmer >> has used all(seq) without having thought in advance about what the >> right thing to do is when seq is empty, the current behaviour is >> already the right one. I tried to test this hypothesis, but a >> Google code search for uses of all() turned up very little >> besides definitions. For example: >> >> if all(t.already_filed() for t in my_tax_forms): >> go_to_bed_happy() >> else: >> file_for_extension() > > > But what about this: > > if all(evidence): > suspect_is_guilty > else: > suspect_is_innocent
even if the evidence is not empty, the above wouldn't be a good test, because you need enough evidence en enough is not implied by all even if all is more than nothing. -- Antoon. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
