I have worked in a couple teams where my engineering managers had a real stick in their craw about always using is comparators with booleans to the point of rejecting PRs that didn't follow this pattern. But you may be right that the more Pythonic way would be to write if x: when checking for Truth. It's a pattern that I've had drilled into my head that might, in fact, not be as idiomatically Pythonic as I had been led to believe.
However, to your point, if you want to check that something is explicitly False (as opposed to something being False or None) it makes sense to me to use an explicit comparator rather than relying on if not x: as if not reads None as a falsey value. Granted, the use case here is pretty narrow, so it's not super useful.
Thank you for the clarification!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I have worked in a couple teams where my engineering managers had a real stick in their craw about always using
iscomparators with booleans to the point of rejecting PRs that didn't follow this pattern. But you may be right that the more Pythonic way would be to writeif x:when checking for Truth. It's a pattern that I've had drilled into my head that might, in fact, not be as idiomatically Pythonic as I had been led to believe.However, to your point, if you want to check that something is explicitly
False(as opposed to something beingFalseorNone) it makes sense to me to use an explicit comparator rather than relying onif not x:asif notreadsNoneas a falsey value. Granted, the use case here is pretty narrow, so it's not super useful.Thank you for the clarification!