On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 9:35:57 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > Heh! A flurry of opinions! > > No time right now… other than to say thank you (MRAB) for this little gem: > > > > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:29:02 PM UTC+5:30, MRAB wrote: > >> On 2016-07-16 17:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:33 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >> > And yes, Rustom, I'm very familiar with the philosophical objections to > >> > the > >> > something/nothing distinction. "Is zero truly nothing, or is it some > >> > thing > >> > distinct from the absence of any number?" I'm not interested in that > >> > argument. Let the philosophers count angels, but as far as Python code > >> > goes, I'm an intuitionist: if I have zero sheep, that's the same as not > >> > having any sheep, or having no sheep. > >> > > >> [snip] > >> > >> And if you're going to argue that zero is something, then you could also > >> argue that false is something... > > > > Likewise Chris’ example of the comparison of Pike and Python alternative > > semantics > > So if you accept that there are different semantics that all have > validity, can you also accept that Python's model is not "bizarre"? > > ChrisA
I am sure Chris you can distinguish between: - Python’s (bool) model is bizarre - The model “Everything has auto-bool-nature” is bizarre - The notion « “Everything has auto-bool-nature” is straightforward » is bizarre My earlier statement (with emphasis in original): > You also have a bizarre notion that python's property: “Everything has > auto-bool-nature” IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. If you like you can take me to task for not being sufficiently punctilious about quote-marks as I am now. [And remember your objections to my (mis)use of unicode <wink>] -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
