> > - bool() called without arguments now returns False rather than > > raising an exception. This is consistent with calling the > > constructors for the other builtin types -- called without argument > > they all return the false value of that type. (SF patch #724135) > > I seriously question the usefulness of such an approach. It > doesn't seem to buy us anything and is likely to hide typos > or progamming errors. Types with constructors that insist on an argument are problematic to generic code that tries to instantiate a type by simply calling it. I don't think that there's much chance that e.g. str() or int() will be used by accident and not discovered right away. --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