On 05/13/2013 06:53 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 13/05/2013 22:17, Alister wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:28:29 +0100, Fábio Santos wrote:
I think it is more readable. When doing more complicated statements I
use != instead, but when it's a single test I prefer not … ==
It's a personal thing. It may also have to do with the fact that I
didn't know python had != when I was a novice.
On 13 May 2013 19:08, "Ned Batchelder" <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote:
I would then still write it as not (x == y) to make it clear to myself &
avoid any possible confusion although I think that X != Y is much
cleaner.
2 lines from the zen stand out here:-
Explicit is better than implicit.
in the face of ambiguity refuse the temptation to guess.
there are many features of Python (& other languages) i did not now when
I started but have adopted once I understood what they were & how they
worked. then again use what you are most comfortable with.
Practicality beats purity
I much prefer the alternative <> for != but some silly people insisted
that this be removed from Python3. Just how stupid can you get?
So which special methods should the <> operator call? By rights it
ought to call both __gt__ and __lt__ and return True if either of them
is True.
--
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
