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.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/JC6WOBYJRDIPOBLUDTS6IMBT4NC63YMZ/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
