Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Greschke wrote:
>
>
>>I'd go even one step further. Turn it into English (or your favorite
>>non-computer language):
>>
>>1. While list, pop.
>>
>>2. While the length of the list is greater than 0, pop.
>>
>>Which one makes more sense? Guess which one I like. CPU cycles be
>>damned.
>>:)
>
>
> One of my rules is, always program like the language actually has a Boolean
> type, even if it doesn't.
Python has a boolean type.
> That means, never assume that arbitrary values
> can be interpreted as true or false,
There's nothing to assume, and nothing arbitrary in it. It's all clearly
defined in whole letters in the language references.
> always put in an explicit comparison
> if necessary so it's obvious the expression is a Boolean.
The fact that the expression is used in the context of a if statement is
clearly enough to denote a boolean expression. Explicitly testing
against a boolean is uselessly redundant - and doesn't change anything,
since it's always a boolean expression. FWIW, getting rid of theses
"explicit" redundant tests was one of the first things I learned about
programming.
--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.split('@')])"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
