From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id VuPVFluav2C+ZQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2021 12:27:07 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4EFC21F163; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:27:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C04A1E01F for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:27:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 061B0396E870 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:27:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 061B0396E870 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1623169626; bh=GUm5t4fWnVwAUVJXl46yYHz3YQNZtbDNyif3eoWa31k=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=nECmJ0FLodzbcTlAa5L1GkixSz2y4gWUD++xsgpQC6gQsP6pQSX2PgQJjCMdBFU7p H+e9kIorQ7JFU4/dk5U7eCqpl1bqcUKl8GartMEe1RNDFg2Fs0Z45q5GsnpgSfYz5y kS4K8ZyKRPzFhIHlKmUFo7jwJ7lT4Vr/wJDsM2zM= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E53396E85F for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:26:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 26E53396E85F Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 158GPcth021015 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:25:43 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 158GPcth021015 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C54271E01F; Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use is/is not to check for None in python. To: Lancelot SIX , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210607225044.486370-1-lsix@lancelotsix.com> Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 12:25:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:25:38 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-06-07 9:12 p.m., Mike Frysinger via Gdb-patches wrote: > On 07 Jun 2021 23:50, Lancelot SIX via Gdb-patches wrote: >> While reviewing a patch sent to the mailing list, I noticed there are few >> places where python code checks if a variable is 'None' or not by using the >> comparison operators '==' and '!='. PEP8[1], which is used as coding standard >> in GDB coding standards, recommends using 'is' / 'is not' when comparing to a >> singleton such as 'None'. > > this is correct, so all the changes look fine. but i wonder if we couldn't > make many more pythonic by treating them as bools. for example: The patch LGTM but I also agree with Mike. So Lancelot, if you want to merge it as-is, that's fine. If you want to update it as suggested by Mike, that's fine too. Simon