Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Greg Ewing <greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>
>
>>Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com>:
>>
>>
>>>Guido's proposal is for bool to be a
>>>subclass of int. Consequently, 28 + True should yield 29
>>>
>>But True - 1 won't equal False. Should it?
>>
>
> Despite that Guido said "no" here, I think the answer is "yes", and
> the first sentence is wrong: True - 1 == False. True - 1 won't be
> identical with False, but it will be equal to it.
Sigh... Having read this huge thread now in 2.5 hours,
I can't say I like this stuff too much.
Why allow coercion to int at all?
We can use Int(False), like we can use Bool(42).
But still I think keeping Bool and Int completely disjoint
types was a very well thought-out decision of Nikolas Wirth,
and I wish very much that Python goes the same clean way
or stays where it is!
Please let's make a true type, no compromizes, no repr
issues, no arithmetic operations, absolutely unrelated
and really incompatible to integer, also no < relation.
Python-looks-more-and-more-perlish-to-me - ly y'rs - chris
--
Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:tismer@tismer.com>
Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's
Kaunstr. 26 : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/
14163 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
PGP Fingerprint E182 71C7 1A9D 66E9 9D15 D3CC D4D7 93E2 1FAE F6DF
where do you want to jump today? http://www.stackless.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