Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:28:28 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
I prefere to explicitly write what I want to test:
if myInt <> 0:
I would argue against that. Why do you, the coder, care about the
specific details of treating ints in a boolean context? The int type
itself knows, leave the decision to it.
I think you're missing the point. He's not using ints in a boolean
context. If it were a boolean context, he would be using bools in the
first place.
Of course he is -- he's branching on an int (a boolean context), and
explicitly writing out the test as myInt <> 0. In fact, that test could
just as easily be written as bool(myInt), which has the benefit of being
even more explicit that you want a bool.
I never use integers as boolean value. There is no need to in python,
since True and False are available. I use integers only as integers
(hope you see what i mean, i.e to count a number of...).
Knowing that, the only meaning possible would be
if myInt:
equals to
if myInt is not None:
in other words, if myInt is a meaningful integer.
But this is wrong in python, as "if myInt" means "if myInt <>None and
myInt <>0" (I experienced bug because of my wrong understanding).
Fine I can live with that. It forces me to write explicitly the
condition I require, which is a good thing (explicit >> implicit).
JM
PS : you made a typo, myInt <> 0 does not equal to bool(myInt) (when
myInt is None)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
