[Tutor] beginning to code

[Rustom Mody]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 6:25:09 PM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:23:49 PM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 8:51:38 PM UTC-5, INADA Naoki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would agree that testing any of those for '== True' or
> > > > > the like is pointless redundancy,
> > > >
> > > > But what's wrong with syntactical redundancy when it brings
> > > > _clarity_ to the source code? And why can't Python be smart?
> > > > Consider the collowing code:
> > > >
> > > >     if bool(someObject) == True:
> > > >         # Do something
> > > >
> > > > Yes, from a "byte-code perspective", this source code is
> > > > superfluous, but, from a source code perspective, this code
> > > > is perfectly balanced between explicit and implicit.
> > > 
> > > I can't agree with you.  It's too redundant.  It doesn't
> > > provide any information about what coder think. 
> > 
> > It's not about what the "coder thinks", many times what the
> > coder thinks is wrong, it's about writing code that is
> > intuitive to as wide an audience as possible.
> > 
> > > While PEP 8 recommends `if x:`, I accept `if x > 0` or `if
> > > len(x) > 0` when I review code in my company.
> > 
> > So when `x` is an iterable, as in:
> > 
> >     if len(x) > 0:
> >         # blah
> > 
> > You're okay with the explicit test. Or when `x` is a
> > numeric, as in:
> > 
> >     if x > 0:
> >         # blah
> >         
> > You're okay with the explicit test. So, from a standpoint of
> > consistency, you /should/ be okay with this:
> > 
> >     if bool(x) == True:
> >         # blah
> > 
> > But you're not! :-). 
> 
> I have a feeling Rick that you are mixing up two unrelated things:
> - the bool(x) part
> - the ... == True part
> 
> The operation 
> x == True
> for true(!)/proper booleans x is a no-op
> because True == True is True
> and False == True is False
> And there are no other (proper) booleans
> 
> However because anything else can be bool-ish even though not boolean
> you need the bool(x) to effect the mapping:
> 
> {None, 0, "" {}, []} → False
> Everything_else → True
> 
> This mapping is neither obvious nor trivial

Sufficiently non-obvious that I missed the key element:
{None, 0, "" {}, [], False} → False