In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Greschke >> wrote: >> >> >>>I'd go even one step further. Turn it into English (or your favorite >>>non-computer language): >>> >>>1. While list, pop. >>> >>>2. While the length of the list is greater than 0, pop. >>> >>>Which one makes more sense? Guess which one I like. CPU cycles be >>>damned. >>>:) >> >> >> One of my rules is, always program like the language actually has a >> Boolean type, even if it doesn't. > > Python has a boolean type.
A _proper_ boolean type would _have_ to be used in conditionals. >> That means, never assume that arbitrary values >> can be interpreted as true or false, > > There's nothing to assume, and nothing arbitrary in it. It's all clearly > defined in whole letters in the language references. Not simply enough. >> always put in an explicit comparison >> if necessary so it's obvious the expression is a Boolean. > > The fact that the expression is used in the context of a if statement is > clearly enough to denote a boolean expression. Which is an inconsistent use of the term "boolean" compared to your statement above that "Python has a boolean type", is it not? > Explicitly testing against a boolean is uselessly redundant... Not sure this has anything with what I was saying. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
