➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2021-12-15 11:21 by aziz, last changed 2022-04-11 14:59 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Messages (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg408595 - (view) | Author: aziz (aziz) | Date: 2021-12-15 11:21 | |
>>> st = "True" >>> bool(st) True >>> st = "False" >>> bool(st) True >>> >>> stk = "False" >>> bool(stk) True >>> eval(stk) False |
|||
| msg408599 - (view) | Author: Alex Waygood (AlexWaygood) *  |
Date: 2021-12-15 12:34 | |
Hi! Your message here is a little unclear. Are you proposing a new feature (an enhancement), or filing a bug report? In either case, I'm afraid this behavior is very unlikely to change. In general, strings in Python are always considered truthy unless they are empty, even if they are the literal string "False" or "0". This is a very important principle in Python, and changing it would raise serious backwards-compatibility concerns. You can read more about truth-value testing here: https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#truth-value-testing |
|||
| msg408669 - (view) | Author: Josh Rosenberg (josh.r) * |
Date: 2021-12-16 03:40 | |
Agreed, this is not a bug. The behavior of the bool constructor is not a parser (unlike, say, int), it's a truthiness detector. Non-empty strings are always truthy, by design, so both "True" and "False" are truthy strings. There's no bug to address here. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:59:53 | admin | set | github: 90240 |
| 2021-12-16 03:40:31 | josh.r | set | status: pending -> closed nosy: + josh.r messages: + msg408669 resolution: not a bug stage: resolved |
| 2021-12-15 12:34:29 | AlexWaygood | set | status: open -> pending nosy: + AlexWaygood messages: + msg408599 components: - 2to3 (2.x to 3.x conversion tool) type: enhancement -> |
| 2021-12-15 11:21:17 | aziz | create | |