On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
I can distinguish them, yes. But Python's boolification model is fundamentally the same as the model "Everything has auto-bool-nature". So those two aren't really all that different, save that one of them is language-agnostic. I understand your third statement, but I posit that these last points have proven it false. There are clearly a number of viable semantic systems: 1) REXX and, I think, Pascal: there are two specific values that may be used in conditionals, and anything else is an error 2) Everything is legal in a conditional, and has a truth value 2a) Pike: 0 is false, every other object is true, unless it defines a magic method 2b) Python: Empty values and collections are false, everything else is true, unless it defines a magic method 2c) JavaScript: 0, null, undefined, nan, "", false are false, everything else is true, including all objects (no magic method option) 3) Machine code: There are no conditionals - just CPU flags that you can jump or not jump on. All of them work. So you could *disagree* with the statement that Python's model is straight-forward, but you cannot say that this statement is *bizarre*. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
