[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 285: Adding a bool type

[Chris Liechti]

Ka-Ping Yee <ping at lfw.org> wrote in news:mailman.1017857237.27591.python-
list at python.org:
> [*] By real booleans, i mean the following.  (Booleans would have
>     to behave like this for me to consider them "good enough" to
>     be better than what we have now.)
> 
>     >>> False, repr(False), str(False)
>     (False, 'False', 'False')
>     >>> True, repr(False), str(False)
>     (True, 'False', 'False')
>     >>> False + True
>     TypeError...

or better "True" (0+1==1 --> True)

>     >>> False == None
>     0
>     >>> False == 0
>     0
>     >>> True == 1
>     0

i disagree. comparing True/False with other values should give the same 
result as when it were used with an 'if':
>>> True == 1, True == 6
True, True
>>> False == 0, Flase == [], Flase == 1
True, True, False

because 0 and [] etc. are representing Flasehood they should also be equal 
to False. 'False is []' etc. will allways be False except for "False is 
False".


>     >>> {0: 0, False: False, 1: 1, True: True}
>     {0: 0, False: False, 1: 1, True: True}
> 
> ... and probably
> 
>     >>> None < False < True < 0
>     True

None has no value in a nummerical sense an the docs clearly say that you 
shouldn't use it that way...

False and True should be represented as 0 and 1 in a nummerical usage.
 
> (Hee hee -- i suppose the fact that "boolean" starts with a "b"
> gets us this for free.  But i wonder how many people are going
> to be puzzled by True < 0?)


-- 
Chris <cliechti at gmx.net>