Forgetting "()" when calling methods

[Alex Martelli]

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Alex Martelli wrote:
> 
>> I think "if f is None:" and even more "if callable(f):" are
>> better ways to express this test -- explicit is better than
>> implicit.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly.  I was just giving an real-world example of use
> where the "Booleanness" of a function-or-maybe-not-a-function would be
> useful.

Yes, I understood that -- sorry if I wasn't explicit(:-) enough
in expressing my understanding.


> I personally explicitly do "x is None" tests for anything when I'm
> checking for Noneness, this was just as an example.

More importantly, it MAY be a widespread usage pattern (perhaps by
mistaken analogy with other "if x:" usages).  If so, then breaking
it would be unconscionable.  _However_ -- *warnings* can still be
optionally emitted, even though "if f:" were to be supported
forevermore -- newbies-who-forget-() might enable those warnings
and so still get some help, having their error diagnosed ASAP.
Hmmm...


Alex