Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #111518
| Path | csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic |
| Date | Sun, 17 Jul 2016 03:06:42 +1000 |
| Lines | 94 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.38.1468688805.2307.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
| References | <15997174-44d5-431c-8f90-a8d700921820@googlegroups.com> <576b8a41$0$2792$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> <576B9B33.2030903@rece.vub.ac.be> <07e13a5d-38bf-7bfa-f45f-a24dea8e3004@online.de> <mailman.59.1466670482.11516.python-list@python.org> <576ba927$0$1504$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87wplgfdb5.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <dt8gr5FkccbU1@mid.individual.net> <4c257ef7-519f-4121-b63b-fb38566072d0@googlegroups.com> <5773c832$0$1598$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <c32a4369-706b-40bc-8a8b-410b4a29df20@googlegroups.com> <57745c6d$0$1583$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <d60e179a-c244-48c1-8438-03ad63292897@googlegroups.com> <5775555f$0$22140$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <7ecde6d0-d3db-4a7a-8de6-65b398fedafe@googlegroups.com> <578a0992$0$1610$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAPTjJmpRO+V+6s8RebvTkUu=7DqWPbM5ycgSZkhsZ7ebsPz6Dw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.33.1468665977.2307.python-list@python.org> <d3a23120-ad47-4e46-b6ce-4311ae003712@googlegroups.com> <578a605f$0$1611$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAPTjJmqyZBAGWce+Hpg-oi0z1NfsZUCBx2P6Ck3knwK+v_8ebw@mail.gmail.com> |
| Mime-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
| X-Trace | news.uni-berlin.de sCF3h3iLQN44LTNwHHD54AZAxS5Rukko4P5ip0LbHdQA== |
| Return-Path | <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| X-Original-To | python-list@python.org |
| Delivered-To | python-list@mail.python.org |
| X-Spam-Status | OK 0.000 |
| X-Spam-Evidence | '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.02; 'true,': 0.04; 'method.': 0.05; '(b)': 0.07; 'default.': 0.07; 'defines': 0.07; 'definitions': 0.07; 'false,': 0.07; 'false.': 0.07; 'important,': 0.07; 'list?': 0.07; 'method,': 0.07; 'reason,': 0.07; 'works.': 0.07; 'api': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.09; '"if': 0.09; '"in': 0.09; 'collections': 0.09; 'deemed': 0.09; 'logic': 0.09; 'methods,': 0.09; 'system;': 0.09; 'bug': 0.10; 'python': 0.10; 'language,': 0.11; '"this': 0.13; 'exception': 0.13; 'languages,': 0.15; '"is': 0.16; '"should': 0.16; '"while': 0.16; "(it's": 0.16; '*before*': 0.16; '2016': 0.16; '__len__,': 0.16; 'angels,': 0.16; 'answers:': 0.16; 'argument.': 0.16; 'boolean': 0.16; 'claim,': 0.16; 'cons': 0.16; 'distinct': 0.16; 'distinction.': 0.16; 'emptiness': 0.16; 'empty.': 0.16; 'false:': 0.16; 'from:addr:rosuav': 0.16; 'from:name:chris angelico': 0.16; 'language)': 0.16; 'lookups.': 0.16; 'massively': 0.16; 'objections': 0.16; 'opposite': 0.16; 'pathological': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'sense,': 0.16; 'thanked': 0.16; 'trivially': 0.16; 'usage,': 0.16; 'user- defined': 0.16; 'value",': 0.16; 'zero,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'obviously': 0.16; 'tree': 0.18; '(in': 0.18; 'student': 0.20; 'cc:2**0': 0.20; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.20; 'saying': 0.22; '(a)': 0.22; 'class,': 0.22; 'features,': 0.22; 'fine,': 0.22; 'suppose': 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; 'defined': 0.23; '(or': 0.23; "python's": 0.23; 'represents': 0.23; 'somewhere': 0.24; 'header :In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; "doesn't": 0.26; 'question': 0.27; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'to?': 0.27; 'actual': 0.28; '(new': 0.29; 'context,': 0.29; 'far,': 0.29; 'idea,': 0.29; 'mind,': 0.29; 'usable': 0.29; '(c)': 0.29; 'array': 0.29; 'objects': 0.29; 'raise': 0.29; "i'm": 0.30; 'subject:/': 0.30; 'code': 0.30; 'programmers': 0.30; 'probably': 0.31; '"the': 0.32; 'says': 0.32; 'generally': 0.32; 'language.': 0.32; 'though,': 0.32; 'maybe': 0.33; 'run': 0.33; 'useful': 0.33; 'class': 0.33; "d'aprano": 0.33; 'instances': 0.33; 'jump': 0.33; 'steven': 0.33; 'though.': 0.33; 'true.': 0.33; 'case,': 0.34; 'languages': 0.34; 'handle': 0.34; 'importantly,': 0.66; "they're": 0.66; 'spend': 0.67; 'therefore': 0.67; 'choose': 0.68; 'computers': 0.70; 'teach': 0.70; 'wish': 0.71; 'covers': 0.72; 'jul': 0.72; 'physical': 0.72; 'await': 0.76; 'as:': 0.79; 'chrisa': 0.84; 'comparable': 0.84; 'hardly': 0.84; 'here!': 0.84; 'lacks': 0.84; 'non-zero': 0.84; 'pike': 0.84; 'reflection': 0.84; 'simulations': 0.84; 'terrible': 0.84; 'ultimately,': 0.84; 'weighing': 0.84; 'shopping': 0.87; 'to:none': 0.91; 'sheet': 0.93 |
| DKIM-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:cc; bh=g+5Ouklhv2HvN/X/jcoa24skUA5TydGU57pd7+xLnhQ=; b=UawzsC7HkQURe3XFAcOqHkGnwBjq+05soN2VXA96NkxjWzhGWzwXi65iLhv6e4t5Jx bN+3XpHdRJ2fDzwebJ2jb3rffvXHJbdrkqX9m6NKGd5cV0+eRjmyoYCnzlHsL5eqsm4T PkfHaZD9bn/o35sA9u5jHA5v79dGveKYxLThjJIdK5Ljmmr4/dMe8upO2eIsP9/p1QTa JfH//GnqxUsrt8X9sGf0HvaIQwqTRyrWqBGaazdnLODxQN5l3CjsemO4jok27ZyNAzot pJCuOcznV7wkQpTQUVrW67bmL82NFpG/FZGgLP1GrCnjgBOA/VdNnpJHy55tOrbLCYgV DfPQ== |
| X-Google-DKIM-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:cc; bh=g+5Ouklhv2HvN/X/jcoa24skUA5TydGU57pd7+xLnhQ=; b=ks3DvJI0df2GfnTuKV1W6h8EGeoBtl7xmJTWvaPVa0BLBdo5bJWBHcqwcZoiVIiqyR JxBxLrLe3NwDXa5ctj8TXph/jm4zvWjhpgWHON449budrDp29FX0InJ8lj0E60MDpXq7 fgxFH0hjCKP71rBHXHW6XAuFeukgPcOLzgVCM7ERNVOxQS+M2Mm335HoZARdMW/hSAY1 I+c/RTAF49ySsCdRkc/eGppaOtc5dMJkdL0scnGAsQEWBWMVOeuLzRKykQBPLFueRAwG sF1eCMQDQDuL2j/qCJxS5MhIZqZqv5licnEZZLVAlt/45wHXAoc8fvOEgkTpoHSb+ltR ckSA== |
| X-Gm-Message-State | ALyK8tLJu2d+XVQnBU5cWSGROoIJWxffWofk0xh10SU/3OSitYGxGEJTtk1ZISrY4hf2uPspJM35V2djDItjkA== |
| X-Received | by 10.194.117.72 with SMTP id kc8mr5211353wjb.30.1468688803829; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 10:06:43 -0700 (PDT) |
| In-Reply-To | <578a605f$0$1611$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| X-BeenThere | python-list@python.org |
| X-Mailman-Version | 2.1.22 |
| Precedence | list |
| List-Id | General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org> |
| List-Unsubscribe | <https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe> |
| List-Archive | <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/> |
| List-Post | <mailto:python-list@python.org> |
| List-Help | <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help> |
| List-Subscribe | <https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe> |
| X-Mailman-Original-Message-ID | <CAPTjJmqyZBAGWce+Hpg-oi0z1NfsZUCBx2P6Ck3knwK+v_8ebw@mail.gmail.com> |
| X-Mailman-Original-References | <15997174-44d5-431c-8f90-a8d700921820@googlegroups.com> <576b8a41$0$2792$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> <576B9B33.2030903@rece.vub.ac.be> <07e13a5d-38bf-7bfa-f45f-a24dea8e3004@online.de> <mailman.59.1466670482.11516.python-list@python.org> <576ba927$0$1504$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87wplgfdb5.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <dt8gr5FkccbU1@mid.individual.net> <4c257ef7-519f-4121-b63b-fb38566072d0@googlegroups.com> <5773c832$0$1598$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <c32a4369-706b-40bc-8a8b-410b4a29df20@googlegroups.com> <57745c6d$0$1583$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <d60e179a-c244-48c1-8438-03ad63292897@googlegroups.com> <5775555f$0$22140$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <7ecde6d0-d3db-4a7a-8de6-65b398fedafe@googlegroups.com> <578a0992$0$1610$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <CAPTjJmpRO+V+6s8RebvTkUu=7DqWPbM5ycgSZkhsZ7ebsPz6Dw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.33.1468665977.2307.python-list@python.org> <d3a23120-ad47-4e46-b6ce-4311ae003712@googlegroups.com> <578a605f$0$1611$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:111518 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:27 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > If you really mean your words, and don't wish to step back and make a less > extreme claim, then you ought to be easily able to show that Python's use > of bools hardly ever works. It's clearly a terrible idea, almost every use > of it is a failure, even Blind Freddy can see that it is hard to use and > not straightforward. Anecdotal, yet important, factoid: When I teach Python to people who've come from other languages, I explain it as: "In Python, anything that represents emptiness is false. Everything else is true.". So far, not a single student has failed to understand this, and quite a few have thanked me for the simplicity (as if it's credited to me, rather than just being a reflection of Python's reality). > The truthiness API is straightforward. Any value or object is usable in a > boolean context, and there is a well-defined protocol for deciding whether > arbitrary objects are considered true or false: > > * If the class defined a __nonzero__ (or __bool__ in Python 3) method, then > the truthiness of the object is given by the result of calling that method. > > * If there is no __nonzero__ (or __bool__) method, but the class defines > __len__, which returns zero, then the object is deemed falsey, otherwise it > is deemed to be truthy. > > * If the class lacks both dunder methods, then the object is deemed truthy. This isn't how truthiness is generally understood, though. Do you explain to someone that (1).__bool__() returns True, or do you simply say that 1, being a non-zero number, is true? > But that doesn't mean that every imaginable class trivially maps into that > dichotomy. Suppose we create a tri-state logic class, with three states > Yes, No and Maybe. Obviously Yes should map to True, and No to False. What > should Maybe map to? We may spend many sleepless hours weighing up the pros > and cons of mapping Maybe to True versus Maybe to False. Or we might flip a > coin. Maybe can also raise an exception in __bool__ if it likes. Or, to emphasize the tri-state nature of your logic class, *all* your instances could raise, with a message saying that "if x:" should be "if x >= tri.Maybe:" or "if x is tried.and.True" depending on how you want to handle Maybe. Ultimately, though, computers don't work with Maybes. They work with concrete yes/no answers: should I run this code or not? (In assembly/machine language, probably "should I take this jump or not" covers it all.) Somewhere along the way, you have to turn that Maybe in to either True or False, and that should be *before* you're asking the question "if x:". Perhaps "Maybe" really means "Inherit" (as in the DeScribe style sheet system; you have a tree of styles, and a style could say "Bold: True" or "Bold: False", but if it doesn't, it's shown as "Bold: Maybe" but really means "Bold: Same as parent"), in which case you resolve it with "while x == tri.Maybe: x = self.parent.x" before doing the lookups. Or perhaps Maybe means "the user didn't enter a value", in which case you go with some global default. Or perhaps it means "the data is too borderline to call this one", in which case you flip a coin. Actual physical coin, mind, no simulations here! > And yes, Rustom, I'm very familiar with the philosophical objections to the > something/nothing distinction. "Is zero truly nothing, or is it some thing > distinct from the absence of any number?" I'm not interested in that > argument. Let the philosophers count angels, but as far as Python code > goes, I'm an intuitionist: if I have zero sheep, that's the same as not > having any sheep, or having no sheep. > > I'm more sympathetic to the view that an empty list is different from > absence of a list, therefore it's something, not nothing. Fine, if that's > the way you want to reason, go right ahead and do so when you write your > own language. But in Python, practicality wins, and empty sequences and > collections are treated as "nothing". (It's a metaphor, not a deep > philosophical axiom.) Pike took the opposite view - an empty array is still true. Did you put up a new shopping list? Yes, there's a list there, even though it's currently empty. Both make sense, and both languages have very simple definitions of "this is true, that is false". (And both permit user-defined types to choose whether they're truthy or falsey, so of course someone somewhere has made a pathological case, guaranteed.) Python says that having zero sheep is the same as not having any sheep; Pike says that a box of doughnuts is still a box even when you've eaten all the doughnuts. Most importantly, neither of them is "bizarre". (In most practical usage, it actually works out pretty much the same way.) Rustom, I await evidence from you that (a) new Python programmers are massively confused because of the boolification rules, or (b) transitioning programmers (new to Python but with experience in some other language) are confused, or (c) that this is more of a bug magnet than comparable features, while providing less useful functionality. Go! Prove to us. ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Elizabeth Weiss <cake240@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 20:40 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-06-22 13:59 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Elizabeth Weiss <cake240@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 21:19 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Elizabeth Weiss <cake240@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 21:20 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-22 16:02 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-06-22 08:26 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-06-22 10:14 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Elizabeth Weiss <cake240@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 21:21 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 00:42 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-22 20:12 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 13:59 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Elizabeth Weiss <cake240@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 21:23 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 09:58 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 11:16 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 01:53 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 12:10 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 11:27 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 12:53 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 12:54 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 13:59 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 13:15 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-06-23 15:05 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 22:13 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 02:44 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 12:57 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 22:38 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-06-25 09:46 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 11:01 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 19:39 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 12:21 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 22:37 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 15:24 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:26 -0400
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-24 02:43 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 01:49 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-25 11:56 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 21:47 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 22:00 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-23 08:34 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 09:46 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 17:05 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 10:17 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 18:48 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 11:23 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-23 21:45 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2016-06-23 14:08 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-23 14:22 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-23 10:23 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-23 10:32 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 19:17 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-06-23 12:46 +0300
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-23 12:19 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2016-06-26 11:01 +1200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 03:21 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 21:06 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-29 23:08 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 06:30 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-30 09:40 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 09:01 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-01 03:22 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 22:48 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-16 19:14 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-16 20:16 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 20:46 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-16 21:02 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 00:26 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 05:33 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-17 02:27 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-07-16 17:58 +0100
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 20:43 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 14:05 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 23:44 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 23:59 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 17:33 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Lawrence D’Oliveiro <lawrencedo99@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 00:44 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-17 20:04 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-17 21:02 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 08:00 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-18 01:58 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-18 02:01 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-07-17 03:06 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 05:15 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-07-17 02:36 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 15:00 +0000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> - 2016-06-29 15:05 +0000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-30 09:44 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@online.de> - 2016-06-23 11:51 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-06-23 17:20 +1000
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-23 09:18 -0400
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-06-23 09:11 +0200
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Elizabeth Weiss <cake240@gmail.com> - 2016-06-22 21:22 -0700
Fwd: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Jorge Gimeno <jlgimeno71@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 20:56 -0700
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-06-22 10:10 -0400
Re: Operator Precedence/Boolean Logic Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> - 2016-06-22 20:43 +0100
csiph-web