why won't slicing lists raise IndexError?

[Rick Johnson]

Python wrote:

[...]
>
> In this snippet (which again, we agreed was an incomplete
> academic example):
>
>     if item:
>         process(item)
>     else:
>         do_without_item()
>
> Can you please explain to me what sort of Python
> syntactical construct do_without_item() could be, other
> than a call to a Python callable object (i.e. a function)?
> Then, could you explain to me how that particular
> syntactical construct is in any way equivalent to the pass
> statement?  Could you then explain to me how using that in
> the simple example given makes any sense whatsoever?

I have already backed my argument with multiple code
examples, exhaustive explanations, and even constructed a
metaphor that was slightly entertaining. Yet, none of those
are good enough? Alas, allow me to try once more.

Consider:

>     if item:
>         process(item)
>     else:
>         do_without_item()

The above code sample is semantically equivalent to the
following real-life "situational logic":

    [man sits on couch and enjoys sports programming]

    if thirsty:
        grab_beer_from_fridge()
    else:
        stay_on_couch()

Above, just as with Terry's code, the else-clause cannot
justify itself. And why you ask? Because, we were _already_
on the damned couch! The else-clause is a "do nothing"
condition, hence, it is functionally equivalent to:

    else:
        pass

*HENCE*, it is super-freaking-fluous! Get it?

However. Here is an example which _can_ justify the else-
clause

    if thirsty and (not tooLazyToMove):
        grab_beer_from_fridge()
    else:
        tell_wife_to_grab_beer()

Heck, even tangential actions can be justified. Observe:

    import random

    if thirsty and (not tooLazyToMove):
        grab_beer_from_fridge()
    else:
        random.choice([
            scratch_self,
            eat_tater_chip,
            change_channel,
            relieve_abdominal_pressure,
            ])()