PEP 285: Adding a bool type
Stephen J. Turnbull
stephen at xemacs.org
Thu Apr 4 01:12:32 EST 2002
>>>>> "Erik" == Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes:
Erik> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> That's an interesting response, because it highlights what I
>> think is the main misunderstanding about the PEP. You should
>> think of it a very *small* change!
I do now ...
Erik> The something-vs.-nothing objection seems to be missing the
Erik> point. The addition of bool does not affect what truth and
Erik> falsity mean in Python, it just adds another explicit set of
Erik> values for use when that is all you mean to talk about.
... and of course Guido has said that all along, but ...
Erik> I'm really surprised at the volume of objections to a change
Erik> that can only help make code clearer and will have very few
Erik> compatibility ramifications.
... (1) if you are not a language implementer (and even if one's done
a bit of it oneself), adding a Whole New Builtin Type looks like a
BFD, not a "very *small* change", which makes (2) the many attempts to
hijack the PEP into the opening wedge of a full boolixing up<wink> of
Python look very plausible. If there were a serious possibility of
boolixation, then "something-vs.-nothing" _would_ be the central issue.
(It wasn't just the "education faction" that missed the point.)
FWIW, I think that's why I didn't "get" it until a couple hours ago.
I don't know if it accounts for anyone else's thinking, of course.
I still think both Alex's and Laura's posts were terrific, and
important contributions to my Pythonic understanding. And they'll
provide lots of ammunition in the never-ending battle against the
demon "if x is True: ..."!
Can-introspecting-confusion-ever-help-clarify-ing-ly y'rs,
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list