Hi Bruno, On 3/3/24 2:34 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > There are no problems with writing "condition != True". Remember the rule? > 'condition' as a variable can hold the values None, True, or a string. > Thus it has to be compared with == or !=.
Yes, I was overthinking it. :) > "condition != True" is more future-proof than "type(condition) is str", > because > - It expresses the intent more precisely. We are making an optimization > that consists in simplifying > > if true; then > STATEMENT > fi > > to > > STATEMENT > > - We may want to allow more complicated conditions in the future, that > may be represented as, say, list of strings instead of a simple string. > > I've therefore applied a modified patch: Good point. Thanks for the explanation and fix. Collin
