Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>Think of it this way: if all(seq) is true, shouldn't it be the case > >>that you can point to a specific element in seq that is true? > > > > > > No, all(seq) is true if you can't point to a specific element in seq > > that's false. > > No, all(seq) is true if every element in seq is true. > Surely that's a more intuitive definition than your > definition by what you can't do. > > The question that needs to be answered is, what if > there are no elements at all?
Then every element in seq is true. (And false. :) Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
