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? That's an arbitrary > decision. Like the question "what is 0**0?" in > mathematics, some answers are more useful than others. > I can respect that practical answer -- but it isn't the > *only* answer. > > (For those who don't see why 0**0 is problematic, 0**x > is equal to 0 for all x, and x**0 is equal to 1 for all > x, so what do you do for 0**0?) > > Here's another way of looking at the problem: > > all(flying elephants which are pink) => true > all(flying elephants which are not pink) => true > > So, these flying elephants -- are they pink or not?
No, you ask two different sets whether they are true. Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
