You are right of course (my bad): bool(expr) could be considered as
being True according to these specifications (and anyway "True" is
always a good answer). Though these are specifications for SR and does
not apply to the entire library. It is not clear to me what global
specification we could hav
I am reading this differently, but that may be my lack of knowledge of
English.
I thought "Return True, unless provably zero" would give true, if something
cannot be shown to be zero.
Martin
On Tuesday, 27 September 2022 at 12:21:12 UTC+2 vdelecroix wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 11:58, 'Ma
On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 11:58, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 20:09:55 UTC+2 Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 10:37:01 UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, this is off topic, but: shouldn't it be this convention? At least:
>>>
On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 20:09:55 UTC+2 Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 10:37:01 UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
>
>> OK, this is off topic, but: shouldn't it be this convention? At least:
>> shouldn't there be some convention? Maybe it would be good to discuss this
On Friday, 23 September 2022 at 10:37:01 UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de wrote:
> OK, this is off topic, but: shouldn't it be this convention? At least:
> shouldn't there be some convention? Maybe it would be good to discuss this
> in a separate thread. Thus, I repeat the question:
>
> Is there, or sh
OK, this is off topic, but: shouldn't it be this convention? At least:
shouldn't there be some convention? Maybe it would be good to discuss this
in a separate thread. Thus, I repeat the question:
Is there, or should there be a convention about x._bool_ returning False
only when x is provabl
