On 2014-03-29 17:07, Roy Smith wrote:
> > if (a is not None) or (b is not None):
> >
> > is immediately understandable by everyone?
>
> I agree with that. But
>
> > if (a, b) != (None, None):
>
> seems pretty straight-forward to me too. In fact, if anything, it
> seems easier to understand than
And for cases where you have more than one or two things to test for
None-itude, you could use
if all(x is None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
do_something_if_theyre_all_None()
or
if all(x is not None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
do_something_if_no_Nones()
or
if not any(x is None for x in [a, b, c, d]):
do_something_if_no_Nones()
which I find *much* more readable from a maintenance point of view.
-tkc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
