Carl Banks wrote:
> Ron Adam wrote:
>> Carl Banks wrote:
>>
>>> In Python, yes and no are the only possible answers. Probably the only
>>> analogous thing you could do in Python would be for all() to raise
>>> ValueError when passed an empty sequence.
>> There is also 'None' which serves a similar purpose of indicating an
>> invalid value when passing arguments.
>
> If all() were to return None, then if would essentially be like
> returning False, because an if-statement would treat False and None the
> same (as would most anything else expecting a boolean value).
>
> The only reasonable way to say "false assumption" in Python is to raise
> an exception.
>
>
> Carl Banks
Then maybe None should be evaluated as True so it is consistent with
all(). ;-)
Not serious of course, Cheers,
Ron
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
