Message212789
| Author |
dstufft |
| Recipients |
Amber.Yust, Andreas.Pelme, Lakin.Wecker, belopolsky, cvrebert, dstufft, eric.araujo, georg.brandl, gwrtheyrn, lemburg, ncoghlan, r.david.murray, shai, tim.peters, yselivanov |
| Date |
2014年03月06日.02:09:54 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1394071795.35.0.470711429721.issue13936@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Infact I would argue that ``if dt.time() != datetime.time(0):`` *would* be an improvement to that code because it is more accurately describing what you actually intend in the same way that ``if time_or_none is None`` would be an improvement to that code because it is more accurately describing what you actually intend.
The difference being here that of the two examples I would argue that yours is more wrong because it's nonsensical for a time, especially one that you're considering to be the last of some set and not the first, to be a False value. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2014年03月06日 02:09:55 | dstufft | set | recipients:
+ dstufft, lemburg, tim.peters, georg.brandl, ncoghlan, belopolsky, eric.araujo, r.david.murray, cvrebert, gwrtheyrn, Lakin.Wecker, yselivanov, shai, Andreas.Pelme, Amber.Yust |
| 2014年03月06日 02:09:55 | dstufft | set | messageid: <1394071795.35.0.470711429721.issue13936@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014年03月06日 02:09:55 | dstufft | link | issue13936 messages |
| 2014年03月06日 02:09:54 | dstufft | create |
|