Check if a given value is out of certain range

[Rustom Mody]

On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 7:18:11 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:12 pm, Laura Creighton wrote:
> 
> > Actually, the fact that adults have more difficulty processing
> > negations is one of the earliest things proven experimentally
> > in experimental psychology.
> 
> I don't think I've questioned that under some circumstances some negations
> can be hard to understand. I've certainly written my share of code
> involving negatives that I've had to refactor to understand. A typical
> example:
> 
> def function(arg, dontpreprocess=False):
>     """Perform function on arg. If dontpreprocess is not true, 
>     arg is preprocessed."""
>     if not dontpreprocess:
>         arg = preprocess(arg)
>     ...
> 
> And of course there are the legendary chains of negations:
> 
> don't not cancel the preprocessor suppressor
> 
> Does the preprocess run or not? :-)
> 
> But I don't think we can jump from a general observation about negations to
> the conclusion that a logical disjunction of two different comparisons is
> necessarily easier to understand than a negated chained comparison. Some
> negations are easy to understand:
> 
>     Don't touch that!
> 
> and some negations may technically be harder to understand, but in a
> practical sense the difference may be negligible:
> 
>     if x == 1: ...
> 
>     if x != 1: ...
> 
> 
> I refuse to believe that the second is *significantly* harder to reason
> about than the first.

[With hermeneutic/semantic hat firmly on]
one could make a case that
"!=" ≠ "not =" ≠ "≠"
[Back with python hat]
My preference:
not 1 <= x <= 10