On Jul 11, 1:22 am, Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io> wrote:
> If you are so desperately concerned with space, then simply do: > > if (choiceIdx1, choiceIdx2) != (None, None): > > Its only eleven characters longer. > > Or, you can do: > > if None not in (choiceIdx1, choiceIdx2): Only the first example was worse than the second. You do realize that Python must build a tuple for ever conditional that uses this semantic? This is more bad, bad, bad than integer bool-ing! My bin packer could potentially compute millions of parts. I do not want to waste valuable processor cycles building numerous tuples just for the sake of a conditional "condition"! This is bad coding style Stephen. > Its only two characters. You really can't honestly be making an argument > about two characters. > > > If you *can* Stefen, > > My name is Stephen. It was a typo not an on purpose misspelling > Of course I won't offer that. If I wish a boolean flag, something which > can have only one of two states (although sometimes a three-state > 'maybe' is useful, with None being the 'neither true nor false'), I'd > use the boolean. I agree... True, False, None. The trinity of bool-inity. > There's numerous cases where "if x" where x is an integer is useful. A > counter is the simplest example. Say you're counting how many > watermelons are in your inventory there is, and you want to test if > there's any or not. "if watermelons" is the concise, readable, > understandable way to express this. Readability counts. I agree but when in a conditional bool(integer) should be forced. Look, don't try to shoove this under the mattress like nobody initializes a variable to None and then maybe or maybe not stores an array index in the variable and then later needs to test for true false in a conditional. It's very common to initialize a counter or index variable to None or 0. And later you don't want 0 and None bool- ing to False and range(1:infinity)+range(-infinity:-1) bool-ing to True! > A boolean test in Python tests "something" verses "nothing", it doesn't > test Truth verses False > > It is entirely consistent in this regard (except in the case of custom > classes which may decide to do strange things). > > Zero is, clearly, nothing. No shit! i am talking about CONDITIONALS HERE. Specifically CONDITIONALS and BOOL-ING! > Utter nonsense. No one does that unless they are coming from C or some > other language without a True/False and don't know about it, or if they > are using a codebase which is supporting a very old version of Python > before True or False were introduced. Ah yes, when nothing else seems to work fall back to you default programming... FUD and ad hominem attacks > But you're just going to argue endlessly, no doubt. Have you ever > actually considered the fact that your gut reaction might, I don't know, > be wrong or misguided? I've admitted when I'm wrong on more then one > occasion. I have no problem admitting when i wrong. In this case however i am completely right. Use True/False for bool-ing, None for emptyness, and integers for inetgers. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
