> I'm completely on board with the semantics for any(). But all() bothers > me. If all() receives an empty list, it will return True, and I don't > like that. To me, all() should be a more restrictive function than any(), > and it bothers me to see a case where any() returns False but all() > returns True.
Who should we call to report this fallacy? GvR? Goedel? Tarski? no, wait... Frege ! or wait... actually, I think that must be Aristotle. Sorry Aristotle, the ol' syllogisms have to go. ; -) All silliness aside, the meaning of all() in python corresponds just fine with "all" in both language and logic. s. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list