> That's easy. That problem can be dealt with by defining True and False > as built-in constants with values 1 and 0 respectively (while you're at > it, make None read-only =). If PEP 285 is withdrawn, I could do a milder version. > > When showing people comparison operators etc. in the interactive > > > >>> a > b > > 1 > > vs. > > > >>> a > b > > True > > and: > > > >>> cmp(a, b) > > 1 > > >>> cmp(a, a) > > 0 > > Which really seems to be the key issue, both as a positive (your > argument) and as a negative (MAL's posts). It certainly is what motivates me. > I wonder if the str()/repr() distinction or % formatting codes could > help break the logjam. Probably not. Marc-Andre has suggested that, and I'm willing to give it a try if it's needed to save the PEP. > I'm still not convinced that the disease is worth the cure, but I'm > open-minded =). :-) Now let's you and I go decide on the Python track and tutorials for OSCON 2002... --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4