Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-19, at 09:19, Gregory Ewing wrote: > Random832 wrote: >> I'm disputing that chained comparisons are used for the particular >> combinations that I am actually arguing should not be used in python. >> Such as a < b > c or a != b != c [whereas a may or may

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 09/16/2015 02:53 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: But now I expect to see a long thread about whether chained comparisons are a natural thing to have in the language. Nice forecast by the way. JM -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Random832 wrote: I'm disputing that chained comparisons are used for the particular combinations that I am actually arguing should not be used in python. Such as a < b > c or a != b != c [whereas a may or may not be equal to c] I can't remember offhand seeing a != b != c written by a

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Random832 writes: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 14:24, Terry Reedy wrote: >> If a, b, c are members of a totally ordered set, so that < is >> transitive, this is equivalent to max(a,c) < b. But the latter makes >> an irrelevant comparison between a and c. > > But *who would write that?* It's not a

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 9/18/2015 9:40 AM, Random832 wrote: I'm disputing that chained comparisons are used for the particular combinations that I am actually arguing should not be used in python. You are free to dislike certain combinations, not use them yourself, and even request others not to use them (all in

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Random832 writes: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, at 16:24, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >> And I'm saying 'in', being truth-valued, is more like a comparison >> than a proper binary operation that has its value in the same set as >> its two arguments. > > The problem is that except for very specialized

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 14:24, Terry Reedy wrote: > If a, b, c are members of a totally ordered set, so that < is > transitive, this is equivalent to max(a,c) < b. But the latter makes an > irrelevant comparison between a and c. But *who would write that?* It's not a natural form of notation.

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Random832 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 14:24, Terry Reedy wrote: >> The semantics Python copies from math is "a op b op c == a op b and b op >> c", > > I don't believe those *are* the semantics in math. I believe that in > math this

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 17:13, Ian Kelly wrote: > Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article disagrees: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_(mathematics)#Chained_notation > > Although the reference to Python leads one to suspect that this could > be based more on Python's semantics than on

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:26 am, Random832 wrote: > I don't even think chaining should > work for all *actual* comparison operations. I don't see why. Mathematicians chain comparisons all the time. If the language implements the same semantics as mathematicians already use, why do you dislike that?

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 08:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:26 am, Random832 wrote: > > > I don't even think chaining should > > work for all *actual* comparison operations. > > I don't see why. Mathematicians chain comparisons all the time. If the > language implements the

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:47 pm, Random832 wrote: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 08:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:26 am, Random832 wrote: >> >> > I don't even think chaining should >> > work for all *actual* comparison operations. >> >> I don't see why. Mathematicians chain

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 09:14, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 10:47 pm, Random832 wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015, at 08:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:26 am, Random832 wrote: > >> > >> > I don't even think chaining should > >> > work for all *actual*

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 21:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > So what? The intended purpose of `is` and `==` is not to return True. It > is > to perform a comparison which may return False, or True. Yeah, but there's no point in doing a comparison unless you're doing it in a context where it *might*

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Marko Rauhamaa wrote: "Sven R. Kunze" : But I agree more than this often helps confusion more than it helps clarity. I see what you did there. I see what you saw what he did there. -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Chris Angelico wrote: But are there _any_ comparison operators which are unchainable? If not, there's no reason to disallow 'in'; My problem is that I find it difficult to remember that Python considers 'in' to be a comparison operator. To me, comparison is something you do between things of

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Mark Lawrence wrote: Is it:- modern art == crap or modern art = crap It's modern == art == crap, surely? -- Greg -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Sven R. Kunze wrote: Btw. ASCII art is also art. So, why does Python not have ASCII art to define graphs and diagrams? Nowadays it would have to support Unicode art. Mustn't leave out all the world's non-English-speaking artists! -- Greg --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Chris Angelico wrote: Certainly not. A grammer is something which grams. A gram is one thousandth of an SI unit. Also, when ordering a hamburger in an SI-using country, instead of a quarter-pounder you need to ask for a 125-grammer. -- Greg --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Gregory Ewing writes: > My problem is that I find it difficult to remember that Python > considers 'in' to be a comparison operator. > > To me, comparison is something you do between things of the same kind, > whereas 'in' is a relationship between things of different > kinds. Calling it a

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 17/09/2015 02:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:06 am, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John art to define graphs and diagrams? Too

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:07 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 17/09/2015 02:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:06 am, Mark Lawrence wrote: >> >>> On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: > Barry John art is also art. So, why

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 17/09/2015 13:07, alister wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:56:07 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 17/09/2015 02:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:06 am, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: Barry John art is

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:10:44 -0400, Random832 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 21:25, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> So what? The intended purpose of `is` and `==` is not to return True. >> It is >> to perform a comparison which may return False, or True. > > Yeah, but there's no point in doing a

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Jussi Piitulainen > wrote: >> Ordinary binary operators not only combine things of the same type, they >> also produce a thing of that same type. So 'in'

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > Ordinary binary operators not only combine things of the same type, they > also produce a thing of that same type. So 'in' does not fit among them > either. > > I feel it's _more_ at home among comparison

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Ian Kelly writes: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >> Ordinary binary operators not only combine things of the same type, >> they also produce a thing of that same type. So 'in' does not fit >> among them either. >> >> I feel it's _more_ at home among comparison

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Chris Angelico writes: > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:49 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Jussi Piitulainen >> wrote: >>> Ordinary binary operators not only combine things of the same type, they >>> also produce a thing of that same type. So 'in' does not fit among them >>>

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 17.09.2015 08:39, Gregory Ewing wrote: Sven R. Kunze wrote: Btw. ASCII art is also art. So, why does Python not have ASCII art to define graphs and diagrams? Nowadays it would have to support Unicode art. Mustn't leave out all the world's non-English-speaking artists! How do I debug

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-17 22:46, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > >> Btw. ASCII art is also art. So, why does Python not have ASCII > >> art to define graphs and diagrams? > > > > Nowadays it would have to support Unicode art. Mustn't > > leave out all the world's non-English-speaking artists! > > How do I debug and

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 17.09.2015 23:38, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: Random832 : It being *easier to implement* to have comparison operators be a single class and have chaining apply equally to all of them may be an excuse for the language to allow it, but it's certainly not an excuse for

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 17.09.2015 23:26, Tim Chase wrote: On 2015-09-17 22:46, Sven R. Kunze wrote: Btw. ASCII art is also art. So, why does Python not have ASCII art to define graphs and diagrams? Nowadays it would have to support Unicode art. Mustn't leave out all the world's non-English-speaking artists! How

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Random832 : > It being *easier to implement* to have comparison operators be a > single class and have chaining apply equally to all of them may be an > excuse for the language to allow it, but it's certainly not an excuse > for *actually* using it from a standpoint of

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, at 16:24, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > And I'm saying 'in', being truth-valued, is more like a comparison than > a proper binary operation that has its value in the same set as its two > arguments. The problem is that except for very specialized cases (strings), the two

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > Random832 : > >> It being *easier to implement* to have comparison operators be a >> single class and have chaining apply equally to all of them may be an >> excuse for the language to allow it, but

True == 1 weirdness

I am maintaining some old code where the programmer used 1 for True because booleans hadn't been added to Python yet. I'm getting some weird behaviour, so I created some simple tests to illustrate my issue. >>> 1 in {1:1}#test1 True >>> 1 in {1:1} == 1 #test2 False >>> (1 in {1:1})

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Blake T. Garretson writes: > I am maintaining some old code where the programmer used 1 for True > because booleans hadn't been added to Python yet. I'm getting some > weird behaviour, so I created some simple tests to illustrate my > issue. > > >>> 1 in {1:1}#test1 > True > >>> 1

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 9:08:54 AM UTC-4, jmp wrote: > x = 5 > 3 < x < 10 That's a great example. I use this case all the time and didn't think to apply the same principal to the in/== case. I assumed that "in" was evaluated first, and then the == comparison was made. Thanks! --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 09:05, Chris Angelico wrote: > My view is that they should remain in the language, but that > dissimilar comparisons should raise linter warnings. I can't imagine a > sane reason for chaining 'in' and equality like that (since the RHS of > 'in' will be a container, and if

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > Ouch. I love chained comparisons more than most people, but this took a > while to decipher. I blame you! Your parentheses mis-primed me for the > wrong reading :) But now I expect to see a long thread

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 09/16/2015 02:16 PM, Blake T. Garretson wrote: 1 in {1:1} == 1 #test2 The second test yield False, because True does not equal 1, apparently. Fair enough. No, it yields False because {1:1} == 1 is false. Test 2 looks actually like (1 in {1:1}) and ({1:1} == 1). Which in your

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 8:54:07 AM UTC-4, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > The second test, test2, is interpreted (almost) as > > (1 in {1:1}) and ({1:1} == 1) > > which is obviously False. Ah, that makes sense. It didn't occur to me that Python would interpret it that way, and

RE: True == 1 weirdness

In terms of operator precedence, is "==" evaluated before "in"? *-*-*- PRESBYTERIAN_HEALTHCARE_SERVICES_DISCLAIMER -*-*-* This message originates from Presbyterian Healthcare Services or one of its affiliated organizations. It contains information,

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Random832 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 09:05, Chris Angelico wrote: >> My view is that they should remain in the language, but that >> dissimilar comparisons should raise linter warnings. I can't imagine a >> sane reason for chaining

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16 10:03, Random832 wrote: > Do chained "in" comparisons ever really make sense, even when > they're all the same type? > > I mean, I suppose 1 in (1, 2) in ((1, 2), (3, 4)) is technically > true, but how useful is it really? I could concoct a "useful" example where "in" is involved

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Watson, Paul wrote: > In terms of operator precedence, is "==" evaluated before "in"? No, they're at the same precedence level. Within that, all comparison operators are evaluated left-to-right, with the chaining that was described earlier.

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 10:26, Chris Angelico wrote: > Quite probably never. But are there _any_ comparison operators which > are unchainable? If not, there's no reason to disallow 'in' "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and "something that can contain X") - all

Re: True == 1 weirdness

"Sven R. Kunze" : > On 16.09.2015 18:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >> Frankly, I don't think chaining was all that great of an idea. > > I like it for x < y < z. > > But I agree more than this often helps confusion more than it helps > clarity. I see what you did there. Marko --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 12:37, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > I like it for x < y < z. > > But I agree more than this often helps confusion more than it helps > clarity. I think that chaining should be limited to: A) all operators are "=" B) all operators are "is" C) all operators are either >= or >

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Chris Angelico : > Far as I can see, the only operator that you might want to disallow > chaining on is 'in' (and its mate 'not in', of course). It isn't > common, but "x is y is z is None" is a perfectly reasonable way to > ascertain whether or not they're all None, just as "x

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 18:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: Chris Angelico : Far as I can see, the only operator that you might want to disallow chaining on is 'in' (and its mate 'not in', of course). It isn't common, but "x is y is z is None" is a perfectly reasonable way to ascertain

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > if word in line in text: > print("word in line and line in text") It find it hard to imagine how one would arrive at the situation of needing to check this. --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

Steven D'Aprano : > The main reason for supporting arbitrary chained operators is that > they could be overloaded and have some meaning that makes sense: Operator overloading is yet another unfortunate language feature. Marko --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:27 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >> On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: >>> I think that chaining should be limited to: >>> >>> A) all operators are "=" >>> B) all operators are "is" [...] > I'm not all that sure A and

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:57 am, Random832 wrote: > > >> I think that chaining should be limited to: >> >> A) all operators are "=" >> B) all operators are "is" >> C) all operators are either >= or > >> D) all operators are either <= or <

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > On 16.09.2015 19:46, Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> >>> node = left <= ptr => right >> >> Exactly. I've no clue what that means. ;) > > Modern art. ;) Ah, well I know that _that_

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 13:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40 am, Random832 wrote: > > > "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and > > "something that can contain X") - all the other comparison operators are > > meant to work on objects of the

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 13:44, Grant Edwards wrote: > Well, that case hadn't been mentioned yet. But, I agree that should be > added as case E and be allowed. That's actually what I meant by A, I just spelled it wrong. Multiple assignment isn't really the same construct as chained comparisons,

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:27 am, Grant Edwards wrote: >> >>> On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 19:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Wow. I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you care to elaborate? Best, Sven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 19:46, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Exactly. I've no clue what that means. ;) Modern art. ;) Best, Sven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 02:57 am, Random832 wrote: > I think that chaining should be limited to: > > A) all operators are "=" > B) all operators are "is" > C) all operators are either >= or > > D) all operators are either <= or < > > There's no other scenario, if the operators have natural

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 19:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40 am, Random832 wrote: "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and "something that can contain X") - all the other comparison operators are meant to work on objects of the same or similar types.

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 9/16/2015 10:42 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: Steven D'Aprano : The main reason for supporting arbitrary chained operators is that they could be overloaded and have some meaning that makes sense: Operator overloading is yet another unfortunate language feature. dunder

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16, Random832 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 13:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: [...] >> graph = a => b => c <= d <= e > > Are you suggesting that all objects concerned are a magical "graph node > object", the <= and [sic] => operators of which return "edge

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:27 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >>> On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: I think that chaining should be limited to: A) all operators are "="

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 19:36, Random832 wrote: I just had another thought on *why* the other cases make me so uneasy. The reason this is reasonable for simple cases like a > b > c or a < b <= c is that, in their normal meanings, these operations are transitive. a > b and b > c implies a > c. a < b and b

Re: True == 1 weirdness

"Sven R. Kunze" : > On 16.09.2015 19:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> node = left <= ptr => right > > Wow. I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you > care to elaborate? Python is an HC Language for HC Developers. Marko --

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 18:41, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40 am, Random832 wrote: "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and "something that can contain X") - all the other comparison operators are meant to work on

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 21:39, Carl Meyer wrote: On 09/16/2015 02:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 16/09/2015 18:53, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Wow. I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you care to elaborate?

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 17:16, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: Chris Angelico : Far as I can see, the only operator that you might want to disallow chaining on is 'in' (and its mate 'not in', of course). It isn't common, but "x is y is z is None" is a perfectly reasonable way to ascertain

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 18:41, Emile van Sebille wrote: On 9/16/2015 10:27 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: I think that chaining should be limited to: A) all operators are "=" B) all operators are "is" C) all

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 09/16/2015 02:29 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 16/09/2015 18:53, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >> On 16.09.2015 19:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> node = left <= ptr => right >> >> Wow. I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you >> care to elaborate? >> >> >> Best, >> Sven > >

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 22:55, Random832 wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 16:38, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 16/09/2015 18:41, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: And with operator overloading, < <= > and => could have any meaning you like: graph = a => b => c <= d <= e

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 16:38, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 16/09/2015 18:41, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > > On 16.09.2015 19:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> And with operator overloading, < <= > and => could have any meaning you > >> like: > >> > >> graph = a => b => c <= d <= e > > > > Sorry? What are

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 21:47, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:46, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Exactly. I've no clue what that means. ;) Modern art. ;) Ah,

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 22:05, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 21:47, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:46, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Exactly. I've no

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 20:47, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:46, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Exactly. I've no clue what that means. ;) Modern art. ;)

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 18:53, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 19:39, Steven D'Aprano wrote: node = left <= ptr => right Wow. I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you care to elaborate? Best, Sven Simple, straight forward easy to read bit of Python, where is the problem?

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John art to define graphs and diagrams? Too colorful for a grammer? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >> >> On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: >>> >>> Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John >>> art to define graphs and diagrams? >> >> >>

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:06 am, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >> On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: >>> Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John >>> art to define graphs and diagrams? >> >> Too colorful for a grammer? > > I'm

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John art to define graphs and diagrams? Too colorful for a grammer? I'm not with you, sorry. Is "grammer" the US spelling of the UK "grammar"?

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 9/16/2015 5:53 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote: On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John art to define

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:47 am, Random832 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 13:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40 am, Random832 wrote: >> >> > "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and >> > "something that can contain X") - all the other comparison

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:41 am, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > On 16.09.2015 19:33, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40 am, Random832 wrote: >> >>> "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and >>> "something that can contain X") - all the other comparison operators

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:44 am, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-09-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:27 am, Grant Edwards wrote: >> >>> On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: > I think that

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:06 am, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 16/09/2015 23:15, Sven R. Kunze wrote: >> On 16.09.2015 23:30, Mark Lawrence wrote: >>> Barry John art is also art. So, why does Python not have Barry John >>> art to define graphs and diagrams? >> >> Too colorful for a grammer? > > I'm

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16 21:25, Mark Lawrence wrote: > Is it:- > > modern art == crap > > or > > modern art = crap Pretty sure they're both wrong... modern art < crap ;-) -tkc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 9/16/2015 10:27 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: I think that chaining should be limited to: A) all operators are "=" B) all operators are "is" C) all operators are either >= or > D) all operators are

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: I think that chaining should be limited to: A) all operators are "=" B) all operators are "is" C) all operators are either >= or > D) all operators are either <= or < That certainly would be a fine guideline. Only use it with all operators the same.

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:03 am, Random832 wrote: > Do chained "in" comparisons ever really make sense, even when they're > all the same type? > > I mean, I suppose 1 in (1, 2) in ((1, 2), (3, 4)) is technically true, > but how useful is it really? if fly in spider in rat in cat in dog in

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On 2015-09-16, Sven R. Kunze wrote: > On 16.09.2015 18:57, Random832 wrote: >> I think that chaining should be limited to: >> >> A) all operators are "=" >> B) all operators are "is" >> C) all operators are either >= or > >> D) all operators are either <= or < > > That certainly

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 01:40 am, Random832 wrote: > "in" suggests a relationship between objects of different types (X and > "something that can contain X") - all the other comparison operators are > meant to work on objects of the same or similar types. `is` and the equality operators are intended

Re: True == 1 weirdness

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 13:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:03 am, Random832 wrote: > > if word in line in text: > print("word in line and line in text") > > But I agree with Tim Chase: I wouldn't use it, even though it's legal. I just had another thought on *why* the