[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Mark Dickinson added the comment: I realise this was opened as a joke, but I actually consider this suggestion to be unridiculous. I've never felt comfortable with code that does "if x" rather than "if x != 0.0" for x a float. What really makes this a no-go in Python is the equality between

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Nick Coghlan added the comment: Alexander, my goal is to flip the default assumption in the time discussion. It is clear from the documentation that the current behaviour is intentional, but there is no concrete *use case* given for it. This is in stark contrast to the other types where treati

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Tim Peters added the comment: Excellent idea! But then we should change bool(0.1) to be False too ;-) -- nosy: +tim.peters ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Changes by Yury Selivanov : -- nosy: +yselivanov ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.p

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Alexander Belopolsky added the comment: I thought literal copying was enough of a hint to humor without a smiley in the title. -- ___ Python tracker ___

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Changes by Alexander Belopolsky : -- nosy: -belopolsky ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https:/

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

Donald Stufft added the comment: Being passive aggressive is pointless, if you disagree then discuss on the actual issue or on the mailing list thread. Opening up random issues because you're mad just makes you look like a child. -- nosy: +dstufft resolution: -> invalid status: open -

[issue20855] RFE: change bool(0.0) to evaluate as True

New submission from Alexander Belopolsky: The rationale for making this change is that the current behaviour converts a stylistic problem in checking values against a sentinel via "bool(value)" instead of "value is not None" into a subtle data driven behavioural bug that only occurs exactly at