On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 14:49 -0500, harrismh777 wrote: > Terry Reedy wrote: > >>> (2) if not li: > >> This is fine. > > This is the intended way. Anything in addition is extra noise and wasted > > calculation. In other words, let Python do the boilerplate work for you. > I agree, but I don't like it.
+1 This is the Python reality-distortion-field at work. Motto#1: Python is all about readability! Motto#2: Crytic code is awesome if it is Pythoncally cryptic! I'd never accept code like "if not x" as an empty test. > ... if not li says nothing about what li is supposed to 'be' and > implies in any case that li does not exist, or worse is some kind of > boolean. > li is in fact an empty list [] and will identify as such, and of > course (as a list object) has all of the attributes and methods of a list... > Why not have a list method that makes this more explicit: > if not li.emptylist() > if not li.empty([]) > there might be others... Good luck. Just code - # You can immediately tell what this is meant to do! if len(x) == 0: - and ignore the Pythonistas [they're nuts; that x.count() doesn't work is amazingly stupid]. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
