Message344166
| Author |
steven.daprano |
| Recipients |
acucci, cheryl.sabella, mangrisano, steven.daprano |
| Date |
2019年06月01日.10:45:51 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20190601104543.GR4221@ando.pearwood.info> |
| In-reply-to |
<1558762853.33.0.966475323893.issue36461@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| Content |
Sorry for the late reply.
> Just a question: why we need to check ``if number == 0:``? In the
> proposal you asked for None too. What changed? Even if the function is
> called with False, will it hurts to keep the default value?
Fair question. On rethinking, I'm okay with an explicit check for None
or zero, ``if number is None or number < 0`` but I don't like the idea
of accepting *any* falsey value.
Calling the function with False is fine, since False == 0 but I don't
think it is fine to call the function with (say) [] or {} or "", which
are all falsey values. |
|