473,372 Members | 1,055 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,372 software developers and data experts.

True

In Python 2.2 I use to have

true = (1 == 1)
false = not true

This was at the recommendation of someone on this list some time ago.
The reason (if I remember correctly) was that setting

true = 1
false = 0

were not true booleans.

Now the expression (1 == 1) returns 'True', and caused a bug in my
code. So my question is what is the proper method for setting booleans
in 2.3?

Really confused,

Daniel Klein
Jul 18 '05 #1
18 2844
In article <fu********************************@4ax.com>, Daniel Klein wrote:
In Python 2.2 I use to have

true = (1 == 1)
false = not true

This was at the recommendation of someone on this list some time ago.
The reason (if I remember correctly) was that setting

true = 1
false = 0

were not true booleans.

Now the expression (1 == 1) returns 'True', and caused a bug in my
Actually, it returns True, not 'True'
code. So my question is what is the proper method for setting booleans
in 2.3?

Really confused,

True and False are now built in to 2.3
python Python 2.3 (#1, Aug 1 2003, 15:18:54)
[GCC 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD]] on freebsd4
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
dir(__builtins__) ['ArithmeticError', 'AssertionError', 'AttributeError', 'DeprecationWarning',
'EOFError', 'Ellipsis', 'EnvironmentError', 'Exception',

'False', .snip. 'True', .snip.

'type', 'unichr', 'unicode', 'vars', 'xrange', 'zip']

but I think if you had an up-to-date 2.2 they should have been there too...

python2.2

Python 2.2.3 (#1, Jun 9 2003, 18:01:50)
[GCC 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD]] on freebsd4
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. dir(__builtins__)

['ArithmeticError', 'AssertionError', 'AttributeError', 'DeprecationWarning',
'EOFError', 'Ellipsis', 'EnvironmentError', 'Exception',

'False', .snip. 'True', .snip.

'super', 'tuple', 'type', 'unichr', 'unicode', 'vars', 'xrange', 'zip']


What error are you getting? How are you using true and false?
I know the developers were very careful to not cause any compatibilty
problems with the addition of booleans.

Jul 18 '05 #2

"Daniel Klein" <da*****@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:fu********************************@4ax.com...
In Python 2.2 I use to have

true = (1 == 1)
false = not true

This was at the recommendation of someone on this list some time ago.
The reason (if I remember correctly) was that setting

true = 1
false = 0

were not true booleans.
There were no true booleans in 2.2 and earlier. Whoever recommended
that didn't know what he was talking about. There was no difference.
Now the expression (1 == 1) returns 'True', and caused a bug in my
code. So my question is what is the proper method for setting booleans
in 2.3?
I presume what broke your code was depending on the return from
either str() or repr(), or the % operator. That was, unfortunately, one
of the incompatibilites between 2.2 and 2.3.

In 2.3, Boolean is a subtype of Int, and has two values: True and False.
Both of these are built in constants, so just use them. That's what they're
for. For most purposes, the are the same as 1 and 0, except for what they
return from str() and repr(), and how they get formatted with %.

John Roth

Really confused,

Daniel Klein

Jul 18 '05 #3

"Andrew Dalke" <ad****@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bg**********@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Daniel Klein:
true = (1 == 1)
false = not true

This was at the recommendation of someone on this list some time ago.

John Roth
There were no true booleans in 2.2 and earlier. Whoever recommended
that didn't know what he was talking about. There was no difference.


Indeed, there were no true booleans in Python, but there were
actual PyTrue and PyFalse objects at the C level. Doing the "1 == 1"
trick would expose that implementation choice to Python.

This was rarely used. The only place I know of is in the win32 code,
where a COM API can take a boolean or an integer function. The
win32 interface checks if the value is PyTrue/PyFalse,

Here's relevant links
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...er/015260.html
http://mailman.pythonpros.com/piperm...q1/000106.html


So, are you saying that this would have returned -1, rather than 1?

John Roth
Andrew
da***@dalkescientific.com

Jul 18 '05 #4
[Daniel Klein]
So my question is what is the proper method for setting booleans in 2.3?


Hi, Daniel.

In 2.3, you do not need to set booleans, `True' and `False' are just there.

However, if you have a need to write portably against many versions, you
might try something like:

try:
True
except NameError:
False, True = range(2)

in modules where you need to use `True' or `False'.

--
Franšois Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard

Jul 18 '05 #5
John Roth:
So, are you saying that this would have returned -1, rather than 1?
No, and I don't know how you thought I suggested it. If PyTrue returned
-1 before then "True = (1==1)" would not provide the right compatibility
between different Python versions and so would not be an appropriate
suggestion at all.

You must have misread the text from the second URL
http://mailman.pythonpros.com/piperm...q1/000106.html
in it, Mark Hammond said: The only thing that I can see changing is the literal value of the
boolean field - currently, the conversion from VT_BOOL to integer will
result in 0 or -1. PyTrue is 1


The boolean returned from COM is -1. PyTrue is (and was) 1.

Andrew
da***@dalkescientific.com
Jul 18 '05 #6
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:13:57 GMT, Lee Harr <mi*****@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
In article <fu********************************@4ax.com>, Daniel Klein wrote:
In Python 2.2 I use to have

true = (1 == 1)
false = not true

This was at the recommendation of someone on this list some time ago.
The reason (if I remember correctly) was that setting

true = 1
false = 0

were not true booleans.

Now the expression (1 == 1) returns 'True', and caused a bug in my


Actually, it returns True, not 'True'


In this case, it _did_ return a literal string of 'True' cuz I was
using str(true) and str(false). That was the nature of the buglet.
Before str(true) would return return '1' and str(false) would return
'0'. Sorry that I didn't include this bit of information in the
original post :-(

Dan
Jul 18 '05 #7
On 04 Aug 2003 06:17:37 -0400, pi****@iro.umontreal.ca (Franšois
Pinard) wrote:
[Daniel Klein]
So my question is what is the proper method for setting booleans in 2.3?


Hi, Daniel.

In 2.3, you do not need to set booleans, `True' and `False' are just there.

However, if you have a need to write portably against many versions, you
might try something like:

try:
True
except NameError:
False, True = range(2)

in modules where you need to use `True' or `False'.


Thanks Franšois. I don't need to support multiple versions. I simply
changed the code from:

true = (1 == 1)

to

true = 1

and presto, no more bug :-)

Dan

Jul 18 '05 #8
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 09:18:13 +1000, Mark Hammond
<mh******@skippinet.com.au> wrote:
Daniel Klein wrote:
Thanks Franšois. I don't need to support multiple versions. I simply
changed the code from:

true = (1 == 1)

to

true = 1

and presto, no more bug :-)


For the sake of being pedantic, I believe your code still does have a
bug. You bug is that you rely on the "str()" of a boolean value
returning a specific string. Your code should probably check the bool
and create your own string rather than relying on this behaviour
remaining unchanged forever.


I'm not really taking a str() on a boolean value anymore; it's being
taken on an integer value. Are you saying that...

true = 1
str(true) # this should always return '1' now and forever more

....could cause problems in the future?

The reason I'm taking a str() value is cuz it is being sent over a
socket to a non-python server process, where it is converted back to a
boolean.

Make sense now?

Dan
Jul 18 '05 #9
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:18:45 -0400, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com>
wrote:
The reason I'm taking a str() value is cuz it is being sent over a
socket to a non-python server process, where it is converted back to a
boolean.


In that case, you'd be better off converting using your own routine
rather than relying on a particular behaviour of str() for this test.
Basically, do something like

def boolean2String(boolVal):
return { False : '1', True : '0' } [ not boolVal ]

and save yourself any further future pain...


Thanks Peter, that will do the trick. Just wondering though why you
chose to code the opposite values and not as

def boolean2String(boolVal):
return {True:'1', False:'0'}[boolVal]

Dan
Jul 18 '05 #10

"Daniel Klein" <da*****@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:vr********************************@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:18:45 -0400, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com>
wrote:
def boolean2String(boolVal):
return { False : '1', True : '0' } [ not boolVal ]
Thanks Peter, that will do the trick. Just wondering though why you
chose to code the opposite values and not as

def boolean2String(boolVal):
return {True:'1', False:'0'}[boolVal]


Your function requires the arg to be 0/1 (True/False). Peter's
function works for *any* input that can be 'not'ed.

TJR
Jul 18 '05 #11
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> writes:
As Skip said... but it should have had a comment anyway, since it
wasn't clear. You could also consider using "not not boolVal" if
you want to make the code _slightly_ (IMHO) more readable, and slightly
slower, but I think one still needs a comment explaining it. :-(


I find

def boolean2str(val):
if val:
return '1'
else:
return '0'

both more readable, and twice as fast. It doesn't need to create a
dictionary each time, and it does not to perform a dictionary lookup.
If you prefer compactness, use

def boolean2str(val, results=('1', '0')):
return results[not val]

Regards,
Martin
Jul 18 '05 #12

"Martin v. L÷wis" <ma****@v.loewis.de> wrote in message
news:m3************@mira.informatik.hu-berlin.de...
If you prefer compactness, use

def boolean2str(val, results=('1', '0')):
return results[not val]


-or, more safely (no default arg to accidently overwrite)-

def boolean2str(val):
return val and '1' or '0'

But one might want the flexibility of intentionally replacing the
results default, as in

print boolean2str(somevalue, ('T', 'F'))

Terry J. Reedy


Jul 18 '05 #13

"John Roth" <ne********@jhrothjr.com> wrote in message
news:vi************@news.supernews.com...

"Daniel Klein" <da*****@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:fu********************************@4ax.com...
In Python 2.2 I use to have

true = (1 == 1)
false = not true

This was at the recommendation of someone on this list some time ago.
The reason (if I remember correctly) was that setting

true = 1
false = 0

were not true booleans.
There were no true booleans in 2.2 and earlier. Whoever recommended
that didn't know what he was talking about. There was no difference.
Now the expression (1 == 1) returns 'True', and caused a bug in my
code. So my question is what is the proper method for setting booleans
in 2.3?


I presume what broke your code was depending on the return from
either str() or repr(), or the % operator. That was, unfortunately, one
of the incompatibilites between 2.2 and 2.3.

In 2.3, Boolean is a subtype of Int, and has two values: True and False.
Both of these are built in constants, so just use them. That's what

they're for. For most purposes, the are the same as 1 and 0, except for what they
return from str() and repr(), and how they get formatted with %.

John Roth

Really confused,

Daniel Klein


Then, what is the best way to write boolean operations for Python 2.1 so
that it will be as 2.3+ ready as possible?

Should we just use 0 and 1?

Until the vendor of the tool we are using delivers a more recent version of
Python with the product, we must produce 2.1 compatible code.

Thanks.
Jul 18 '05 #14
In article <3f**********@themost.net>,
"Paul Watson" <pw*****@redlinec.com> wrote:
Then, what is the best way to write boolean operations for Python 2.1 so
that it will be as 2.3+ ready as possible?


I've been including the following at the start of some of my code:

if 'True' not in globals():
globals()['True'] = not None
globals()['False'] = not True

My hope is that setting up True and False in this convoluted way will
allow it to continue to work in some future version where assignment to
builtins is disallowed.

--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Jul 18 '05 #15
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:17:15AM -0700, David Eppstein wrote:
In article <3f**********@themost.net>,
"Paul Watson" <pw*****@redlinec.com> wrote:
Then, what is the best way to write boolean operations for Python 2.1 so
that it will be as 2.3+ ready as possible?


I've been including the following at the start of some of my code:

if 'True' not in globals():
globals()['True'] = not None
globals()['False'] = not True


Why not simply:

try:
True
except NameError:
True = (1 == 1) # or not None, if you prefer
False = not True

Or were you trying to change the __builtins__ by using globals()?

-Andrew.
Jul 18 '05 #16
David Eppstein <ep******@ics.uci.edu> wrote in news:eppstein-
D2*******************@news.service.uci.edu:
Then, what is the best way to write boolean operations for Python 2.1 so
that it will be as 2.3+ ready as possible?


I've been including the following at the start of some of my code:

if 'True' not in globals():
globals()['True'] = not None
globals()['False'] = not True

My hope is that setting up True and False in this convoluted way will
allow it to continue to work in some future version where assignment to
builtins is disallowed.


Since True will never be in globals unless you assign it there, you might
as well just drop the if statement altogether. Also I fail to see what
benefit you gain from the contorted assignment into the globals dictionary.
Why not just write:

True = not None
False = not True

It has the same effect overall.

If you want to avoid hiding the builtin True and False, then use try..catch
to detect them.

--
Duncan Booth du****@rcp.co.uk
int month(char *p){return(124864/((p[0]+p[1]-p[2]&0x1f)+1)%12)["\5\x8\3"
"\6\7\xb\1\x9\xa\2\0\4"];} // Who said my code was obscure?
Jul 18 '05 #17
Andrew Bennetts wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 08:17:15AM -0700, David Eppstein wrote:
In article <3f**********@themost.net>,
"Paul Watson" <pw*****@redlinec.com> wrote:
> Then, what is the best way to write boolean operations for Python 2.1
> so that it will be as 2.3+ ready as possible?


I've been including the following at the start of some of my code:

if 'True' not in globals():
globals()['True'] = not None
globals()['False'] = not True


Why not simply:

try:
True
except NameError:
True = (1 == 1) # or not None, if you prefer
False = not True

Or were you trying to change the __builtins__ by using globals()?

-Andrew.


I suppose David tries to avoid a syntax error raised by the assignment

True = somethingElse

in a future version of Python. Therefore he has "hidden" the builtins to be
assigned from the compiler by turning them into strings.

Peter

Jul 18 '05 #18
In article <bn*************@news.t-online.com>,
Peter Otten <__*******@web.de> wrote:
I suppose David tries to avoid a syntax error raised by the assignment

True = somethingElse

in a future version of Python. Therefore he has "hidden" the builtins to be
assigned from the compiler by turning them into strings.


Yes, exactly.

--
David Eppstein http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Univ. of California, Irvine, School of Information & Computer Science
Jul 18 '05 #19

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

46
by: Scott Chapman | last post by:
There seems to be an inconsistency here: Python 2.3.2 (#1, Oct 3 2003, 19:04:58) on linux2 >>> 1 == True True >>> 3 == True False >>> if 1: print "true" ....
3
by: drs | last post by:
I just upgraded my Python install, and for the first time have True and False rather than 1 and 0. I was playing around at the command line to test how they work (for instance, "if 9:" and "if...
35
by: Steven Bethard | last post by:
I have lists containing values that are all either True, False or None, e.g.: etc. For a given list: * If all values are None, the function should return None.
36
by: Remi Villatel | last post by:
Hi there, There is always a "nice" way to do things in Python but this time I can't find one. What I'm trying to achieve is a conditionnal loop of which the condition test would be done at...
14
by: Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address | last post by:
I took a C course some time ago, but I'm only now beginning to use it, for a personal pet project. My current stumbling-block is finding an efficient way to find a match between the beginning of a...
48
by: Skybuck Flying | last post by:
Hi, I came across this C code which I wanted to understand etc it looked like this: if (-1) etc It made me wonder what the result would be... true or false ? In C and Delphi
30
by: Jason | last post by:
I am fairly new to ASP--I have been using it about 2 months. I did these tests (below), and it doesn't make sense to me. False is equal to 0, and that's fine. True should be equal to 1, but it's...
90
by: John Salerno | last post by:
I'm a little confused. Why doesn't s evaluate to True in the first part, but it does in the second? Is the first statement something different? False print 'hi' hi Thanks.
2
by: Ultrak The DBA | last post by:
Using the following query: select substr(reg_var_name,1,24) as reg_var_name, substr(reg_var_value, 1,12) as reg_var_value, level from table(sysproc.reg_list_variables()) as registryinfo; I am...
40
by: nufuhsus | last post by:
Hello all, First let me appologise if this has been answered but I could not find an acurate answer to this interesting problem. If the following is true: C:\Python25\rg.py>python Python...
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Apr 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome former...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
In our work, we often need to import Excel data into databases (such as MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle) for data analysis and processing. Usually, we use database tools like Navicat or the Excel import...
0
by: Charles Arthur | last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
0
by: emmanuelkatto | last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud. Please let me know. Thanks! Emmanuel
1
by: nemocccc | last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
0
by: Hystou | last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID: 1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration. 2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.