Tim Chase wrote:
I will probably leave the lead-in sentence as-is but may
add another sentence specifically covering the case for
an empty iterable.
as one of the instigators in this thread, I'm +1 on this solution.
Thanks for weighing in, Raymond. As long as people are getting in their
last licks on this one ...
Including the word "all" in the definition of "all()" is suboptimal.
Especially since the everyday meaning of "all" is ambiguous. Sure, leave
in the code-equivalent to clarify things, but why not clarify in text,
also? Here's a compromise:
all(iterable) -- Return True if all elements of the /iterable/ are
true -- more
precisely, if there does not exist an element of the iterable that is
False.
Equivalent to ...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
