PEP 285: Adding a bool type: yes, but not as int subtype

[Kris J. Zaragoza]

In article <mailman.1017691324.15119.python-list at python.org>, Tim Peters wrote:
> I'll channel him:  he intends to add False to that list.  That's all.

Gotta love those digital seances. :) Thanks, Tim.  This does make me
feel a bit better about what direction this is taking.

>> If you don't intend to modify this concept, then what's the real gain
>> for the new boolean type?
> 
> Have you read the PEP?  I can assure you he's not hiding a killer good
> reason he hasn't already mentioned <wink>.

I have read the PEP, but based on that alone, I don't see any reasons
that are terribly compelling.  Perhaps it's just that I'm an
experienced developer or that I have a CS degree.  I just don't find
the basic concepts as they are that hard to grasp.  That's why I keep
wondering how much aid this will really be to a new or inexperienced
programmer.

Kris

-- 
Kris J. Zaragoza       | On the face of it, Microsoft complaining about
kzaragoza at attbi.com    | the source license used by Linux is like the
                       | event horizon calling the kettle black.
                       | -- Adam Barr, article on kuro5hin.org