On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Barry A. Warsaw wrote: > Almost a year ago, I mused about a boolean type in c.l.py, and came up > with this prototype in Python. Cool prototype! However, I think I have a problem with the proposed semantics: > def __cmp__(self, other): > if (self.__flag and other) or (not self.__flag and not other): > return 0 > else: > return 1 This means: true == 1 true == 2 But 1 != 2 I have some difficulty with == not being an equivalence relation... > I think it makes sense to augment Python's current truth rules with a > built-in boolean type and True and False values. Right on! Except for the built-in...why not have it like exceptions.py, Python code necessary for the interpreter? Languages which compile themselves are not unheard of <wink> > But unless it's tied > in more deeply (e.g. comparisons return one of these instead of > integers -- and what are the implications of that?) Breaking loads of horrible code. Unacceptable for the 1.x series, but perfectly fine in Py3K -- Moshe Zadka <mzadka@geocities.com>. http://www.oreilly.com/news/prescod_0300.html http://www.linux.org.il -- we put the penguin in .com
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