On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:19:59 +0000, John Salerno wrote: > Oh!!! I get it now! I was thinking that > > if s > > was the same as > > if s == True
No. But you know that now :) > because I know sometimes you can write if statements this way (though > it's wordy). You can, but shouldn't. > But what I didn't realize was that in the cases I was > thinking of, 's' was an expression that evaluated to a boolean value, > not an actual value of some other type! > > So I suppose > > if (10 > 5) Is the same as: if True because (10 > 5) evaluates as True. > would be the same as > > if (10 > 5) == True Did you mean if (10 > 5) == True == True or if (10 > 5) == True == True == True or even if (10 > 5) == True == True == True == True I hope you see my point now. > because (10 > 5) does evaluate to "True". I think it is a good time to remind people of some extremely well-thought out opposition to the introduction of bools to Python from Laura Creighton: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2002-April/095878.html She lost the debate, Guido had the final word and Python now has bools. Take particular note of her description of Python distinguishing between Something ("cat", 4, [0, 1, 2] etc) and Nothing ("", 0, [] etc). -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list