*blink* That's neat.

[Paul Prescod]

Greg Ewing wrote:
> 
> ...
>
> I ses this more as an argument in favour of having
> a proper boolean type which is clearly separated from
> the other types. If Python had that, things like
> 'if a == 1 or 2' would produce a type error instead
> of doing something unexpected.

I'm all for a proper boolean type but I get annoyed when I have to test
objects against null in Java. We could get a proper boolean type and
still have boolean interpretations for other types.

If Python were being designed from scratch I would probably have voted
on the "only booleans are booleans" side. Now that its deployed and
people seem to like the way it is, I would treat that fact as a more
important consideration than my natural tendency towards purity.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
"I want to give beauty pageants the respectability they deserve."
            - Brooke Ross, Miss Canada International