Boolean tests [was Re: Attack a sacred Python Cow]

[Matthew Fitzgibbons]

Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:58 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 10:33 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 30, 1:15 am, "Russ P." <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Having said that, it would sure be nice to be able to write
>>>> if myList is not empty:
>>>> instead of
>>>> if len(myList) != 0:
>>> I can agree with this.
>> But I guess that could only work if there were only one empty list
>> that represents all empty lists (as there is only one actual "None").
>> I don't know if that makes sense or not.
> 
> I mean in general.  I wouldn't spell it like that.  I would prefer if
> empty(x), with an __empty__ method.  (And support __nonzero__ aka
> __bool__ dropped completely.)
> 
> 
> Carl Banks
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> 

__nonzero__ is not only meaningful for sequence types.

-Matt