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. That means, never assume that arbitrary values > can be interpreted as true or false, always put in an explicit comparison > if necessary so it's obvious the expression is a Boolean.
You can do that, but it's not considered Pythonic. And it might be ineffective. Other than in PHP, Python has clear rules when an object of a builtin type is considered false (i.e. when it's empty). So why not take advantage of this? Georg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
