On 2016-06-29, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2016-06-29, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: >> To Nick, having 1+True return 2 is an accident of implementation, > > My recollection is that it was not an accident of impliementation. It > was an intentional descision to provide compatibility with many years > worth of programs that were written before there was either a boolean > type or built-in True/False integer values. > > Those programs often did this at the top: > > True = 1 > False = 0 > > Having True and False evaluate as 1 and 0 in an integer expression > context guaranteed that those programs would to continue to work with > minimal changes.
I thought it was more for things like this: "%d widget%s" % (widgets, (widgets != 1) * "s") i.e. using boolean expressions as numeric expressions, rather than explicitly setting the identifiers True and False to be numbers. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
