Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic

[Rustom Mody]

On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 10:17:16 AM UTC+5:30, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016 at 3:12:52 PM UTC+12, Larry Hudson wrote:
> > On 06/22/2016 12:42 AM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> >> * boolean operators don’t have to operate on boolean values. The
> >>   language spec
> >>   <https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#boolean-operations>
> >>   says:
> >>
> >>     “...the following values are interpreted as false: False, None, numeric
> >>     zero of all types, and empty strings and containers (including strings,
> >>     tuples, lists, dictionaries, sets and frozensets). All other values are
> >>     interpreted as true.”
> >>
> >> I feel that’s a needlessly complicated rule. It would have been simpler if
> >> boolean operators (and conditional expressions like in if-statements and
> >> while-statements) only allowed values of boolean types. But that’s one of
> >> the few warts in the design of Python...
> > 
> > Wart??  I *strongly* disagree.  I find it one of the strengths of Python,
> > it enhances Python's expressiveness.
> 
> Tightening it up would rule out a whole class of common errors, from misunderstanding (or forgetting) the rule about what exactly gets interpreted as true and what as false <https://bugs.python.org/issue13936> <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28116931/datetime-time0-0-evaluates-as-false-in-boolean-context>.

I would not support "tightening up"
But calling a wart a wart seems like a good idea to me
IOW making the docs a little more honest:
Along these lines:

There are two bool types in Python
A first class bool that is useful for amusement, confusion and one-upping noobs

A second class bool -- also called truthy and falsey -- that is used all the time