Can anyone who is in favor of changing this please come up with a spec
for the new bool() signature? What would you do for the most common
use case of bool(), which is converting an arbitrary value to its
Boolean equivalent without using an if test or the "not not x" hack?
--
--Guido van Rossum (
Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> Can anyone who is in favor of changing this please come up with a spec
> for the new bool() signature? What would you do for the most common
> use case of bool(), which is converting an arbitrary value to its
> Boolean equivalent without using an if test or the "not not
Neal> Except, all the numeric types do, including int, float, and
Neal> complex. But not bool.
The fact that bool is a subclass of int is more historic than necessary. If
not for Python's long usage of 0 and 1 to be the canonical False and True, I
suspect that bool might have been imp
At 02:47 PM 2/24/2007 -0600, Tarek Ziadé wrote:
>I have created a setup.py file for distirbution and I bumped into
>a small bug when i tried to set my name in the contact field (Tarek Ziadé)
>
>Using string (utf8 file):
>
>setup(
> maintainer="Tarek Ziadé"
>)
>
>leads to:
>
> File ".../lib/pyt
On 2/24/07, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum schrieb:
> > Can anyone who is in favor of changing this please come up with a spec
> > for the new bool() signature? What would you do for the most common
> > use case of bool(), which is converting an arbitrary value to its
>
