> [Thomas Heller] > > Well, then we should add "==" and "<>" also. > > Alas, <> will be introduced as a deprecated spelling, despite Barry's > protests. > > > I'm sure disambiguities in the grammar can be resolved somehow ;-) > > > > >>> == == == > > True > > >>> <> <> <> > > False [Tim] > I'm quite sure the last line should be True. <> compares not equal to > everything, including itself, while == compares equal to everything. Then > > >>> <> == == > > might be a nice way to spell random.choice([True, False]); or maybe it > should raise a new ParadoxError. We should leave *something* for Guido to > decide here <wink>. I suspect Jeremy will want a write-up about whether there should be early or late evaluation: >>> == == == <undecided_bool instance at 0x00A3BF08> >>> _.eval() True Raymond Hettinger
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