I think they actually read like they would mean slightly different things, which would make them existing as aliases confusing.
I read `if not val` as "If val isn't true" but i would read `if no val` as "if val does not exist" On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 4:07 PM Daniel Okey-Okoro <danielokeyok...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that adding a `no` keyword as an alias for `not` would make for > more readable, simple, pythonic code. > > Take the below: > > ``` > if not val: > do_thing_because_value_is_falsy() > ``` > > could be (is actually understood as): > > ``` > if no val: > do_thing_because_value_is_falsy() > ``` > > I think this PEP is a work-around for an underlying subtle issue with how > the `not` operator is used. > > It has two use-cases: > > 1. as a NOT gate for producing opposite boolean values > > ``` > opposite = not regular > ``` > > 2. as a sort of ".is_falsy()" checker; when used with an if statement. > > like the first example. > > > This PEP would make the difference between the two usecases explicit. > > Thoughts? > > Best Intentions, > Daniel Okey-Okoro. > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- CALVIN SPEALMAN SENIOR QUALITY ENGINEER cspea...@redhat.com M: +1.336.210.5107 [image: https://red.ht/sig] <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted> -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
