> > >>> False > 1 > False > >>> dir > 1 > True > >>> isinstance < 100 > False > >>> "" >= 10 > True > >>> (1,) <= 500 > False > > And down the rabbit hole we go! > > Now, not only do we have magic that implicitly casts all > objects to booleans in conditional statements *AND* we have > arbitrary Boolean values assigned to every Python object, > but now, we discover that every Python object has been > assigned an arbitrary rich comparison value as well! I > assume the devs are using the boolean values 1 and 0 to make > the comparison work??? But would someone be kind enough to > chime in to confirm or deny my conjecture? >
> Of course, allowing all objects to use the `==`, `!=` sugars > makes perfect sense, but `<`, `>`, `<=`, `>=` are > meaningless outside of numeric-ish types. > > Now you know why Python 3 was born! It's one of many pitfalls in Python 2 fixed in Python 3. Welcome to Python 3 world. > > I don't accept it because `if bool(x) == True` doesn't give > > any information than `if x:`. Both mean just `if x is > > truthy`. No more information. Redundant code is just a > > noise. > > So what about: > > if bool(x): > # blah > > I don't accept it too. It only explains `if x is truthy value`, and it's exactly same to `if x:`. There are no additional information about what this code assumes. bool() is just noise. -- Inada Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
