Carl Banks wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:46 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Filip Gruszczyński a écrit :
One of the Python Zen rules is Explicit is better implicit. And yet
it's ok to do:
if x:
do_sth
when x is string or list. Since it's very comfy, I've got nothing
against though. I am just curious,
On Apr 29, 6:46 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Filip Gruszczyński a écrit :
>
> > One of the Python Zen rules is Explicit is better implicit. And yet
> > it's ok to do:
>
> > if x:
> > do_sth
>
> > when x is string or list. Since it's very comfy, I've got nothing
> > against though. I am just
On Apr 29, 8:37 am, Filip Gruszczyński wrote:
> One of the Python Zen rules is Explicit is better implicit. And yet
> it's ok to do:
>
> if x:
> do_sth
>
> when x is string or list. Since it's very comfy, I've got nothing
> against though. I am just curious, why is it so?
It also works for num
Yes, I get the difference. If x is [], than
if x:
won't be executed and
if x is not None:
will be.
Thanks for clarifying.
--
Filip Gruszczyński
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Filip Gruszczyński schrieb:
> One of the Python Zen rules is Explicit is better implicit. And yet
> it's ok to do:
>
> if x:
>do_sth
>
> when x is string or list. Since it's very comfy, I've got nothing
> against though. I am just curious, why is it so?
>
> And one more thing: is it ok to do
Filip Gruszczyński a écrit :
One of the Python Zen rules is Explicit is better implicit. And yet
it's ok to do:
if x:
do_sth
when x is string or list. Since it's very comfy, I've got nothing
against though. I am just curious, why is it so?
Because it is explicit (or at least considered as
One of the Python Zen rules is Explicit is better implicit. And yet
it's ok to do:
if x:
do_sth
when x is string or list. Since it's very comfy, I've got nothing
against though. I am just curious, why is it so?
And one more thing: is it ok to do
if x:
instead of
if x is not None:
Because
