Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic

[Rustom Mody]

On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 9:35:57 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Rustom Mody  wrote:
> > Heh! A flurry of opinions!
> > No time right now… other than to say thank you (MRAB) for this little gem:
> >
> > On Saturday, July 16, 2016 at 10:29:02 PM UTC+5:30, MRAB wrote:
> >> On 2016-07-16 17:27, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:33 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > And yes, Rustom, I'm very familiar with the philosophical objections to the
> >> > something/nothing distinction. "Is zero truly nothing, or is it some thing
> >> > distinct from the absence of any number?" I'm not interested in that
> >> > argument. Let the philosophers count angels, but as far as Python code
> >> > goes, I'm an intuitionist: if I have zero sheep, that's the same as not
> >> > having any sheep, or having no sheep.
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> And if you're going to argue that zero is something, then you could also
> >> argue that false is something...
> >
> > Likewise Chris’ example of the comparison of Pike and Python alternative
> > semantics
> 
> So if you accept that there are different semantics that all have
> validity, can you also accept that Python's model is not "bizarre"?
> 
> ChrisA

I am sure Chris you can distinguish between:

- Python’s (bool) model is bizarre
- The model “Everything has auto-bool-nature” is bizarre
- The notion « “Everything has auto-bool-nature” is straightforward » is bizarre


My earlier statement (with emphasis in original):
> You also have a bizarre notion that python's property: “Everything has
> auto-bool-nature” IS STRAIGHTFORWARD.

If you like you can take me to task for not being sufficiently punctilious 
about quote-marks as I am now.
[And remember your objections to my (mis)use of unicode <wink>]