3 ms·

I'm curious, what about "x && y" is "python-style" ? It's been in nearly all languages, and for decades before python existed.

• jstimpfle 8y ago
  It was not about "x && y" but about the construct from the parent post as a whole. It never uses y in a boolean context, but only as a value. So I was thinking y could be anything. In python this is how it works: >>> 0 and 'asdf' False >>> 3 and 'asdf' 'asdf' >>> 3 and '' '' 'and' and 'or' in python are short-circuited as in e.g. C, but it's even more short-circuited! The "last" component is not evaluated in a boolean context. For a complete evaluation you have to use the expression in an if or while statement or apply the bool() function. I would say it's like a monad, if that helps.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • hellofunk 8y ago
    What you are talking about has nothing to do with short circuiting.
    • jstimpfle 8y ago
      Agreed, bad choice of words. It's only somewhat similar. Maybe "lazy" would be a better term. Whatever, man! I hope it's clear what I meant.
      • hellofunk 8y ago
        It’s not that you’re unclear, it’s that it is irrelevant to the discussion, as you were talking about a fairly trivial and unrelated language feature — and it is also a feature that exists in many languages, hardly unique to python.
        • jstimpfle 8y ago
          Whatever, man. Maybe it was not totally related. Agreed. Maybe I had a bad day. It started as a single line that wasn't even the point of my comment. Ok?