The idea is nice, but the concrete metaphor you use is wrong. Python objects _can_ be true or false, even if they are different from canonical True or False objects. Same as a container can be iterated over, even if it is not an iterator.
So, I'd say "not False, only false", or "not the False object, but a false object".
As novice in Python, I never even thought to look into how Python evaluates the truthyness of objects such as an empty list. Further, I was also blissfully unaware that classes can define their own bool method, amazing. This was an informative, digestible read. I look forward to more.
Good short koan. I highly encourage you to keep this up. The world needs more of bite sized readable and engaging programming content.
Good one. Loved it. Looking forward to seeing more
The idea is nice, but the concrete metaphor you use is wrong. Python objects _can_ be true or false, even if they are different from canonical True or False objects. Same as a container can be iterated over, even if it is not an iterator.
So, I'd say "not False, only false", or "not the False object, but a false object".
I see what you mean. In this example, the object was all three - "not False", "false" and "empty".
yes, but empty is just a kind of false (in Python).
As novice in Python, I never even thought to look into how Python evaluates the truthyness of objects such as an empty list. Further, I was also blissfully unaware that classes can define their own bool method, amazing. This was an informative, digestible read. I look forward to more.