Op 18-09-17 om 15:58 schreef Chris Angelico: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:30 PM, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@vub.be> wrote: > >> Well that you reduce an object to a boolean value is not obvious to >> begin with. A TypeError because you are treating a non-boolean as >> a boolean would have been more obvious to me. > Sure, but those are basically your only two options. Either you have a > way of interpreting some/all objects as booleans, or you require an > explicit conversion. In Python syntax: > > # Interpret all objects as boolean: > if x: pass > > # Require explicit conversion or comparison: > if bool(x): pass > if x == True: pass > > But not BOTH of the above: > > if bool(x) == True: pass > > That's pointless. It's not "more explicit". It's just more redundant.
But the problem is that the following two pieces of code don't do the same in Python. if x: pass if x is True: pass Sometimes I need that second statement but I can be sure that should I show a piece of code on this mailing list with that statement, all kind of remarks about it being redundant will surface. The fact that x will be interpreted as a boolean even if it isn't means that I need that second statement when I want to do something only when the value of x is True. -- Antoon Pardon. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
