5

If not '' evaluates to True, why does '' == False evaluates to False?

For example, the "voids" of the other types (e.g. 0, 0.0) will return True when compared to False:

>>> 0 == False
True
>>> 0.0 == False
True

Thanks

3
  • 1
    empty sequence evaluates to False, but does not equal False. Read here: stackoverflow.com/a/9573259/6313992 (top 2 answers cover this) Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 10:38
  • 1
    Thanks. Nevertheless, my question remains: Why? Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 10:46
  • @TonyPower Because this is how Python was chosen to be implemented. There's no real answer for the question "why". Also, why would an empty list be equal to False? it is still a list, just an empty one. Commented Aug 16, 2016 at 10:51

5 Answers 5

10

In the context of Boolean operations, and also when expressions are used by control flow statements, the following values are interpreted as false: False, None, numeric zero of all types, and empty strings and containers (including strings, tuples, lists, dictionaries, sets and frozensets). All other values are interpreted as true. User-defined objects can customize their truth value by providing a __bool__() method.

The operator not yields True if its argument is false, False otherwise.

https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#comparisons

But:

The operators <, >, ==, >=, <=, and != compare the values of two objects. The objects do not need to have the same type.

...

Because all types are (direct or indirect) subtypes of object, they inherit the default comparison behavior from object. Types can customize their comparison behavior by implementing rich comparison methods like __lt__() ...

https://docs.python.org/3/reference/expressions.html#boolean-operations

So, the technical implementation answer is that it behaves the way it does because not and == use different comparisons. not uses __bool__, the "truth value" of an object, while == uses __eq__, the direct comparison of one object to another. So it's possible to ask an object whether it considers itself to be truthy or falsey, and separately from that ask it whether it considers itself to be equal to another object or not. The default implementations for that are arranged in a way that two objects can both consider themselves falsey yet not consider themselves equal to one another.

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

Comments

6

It doesn't make sense for '' and [] to actually equal False, because they are clearly different values: a string and a list. If they both equalled False they would have to be equal to each other*. They are just "falsey", which means they come out as false when they are converted to a boolean.

(* in any sensibly constructed language)

not is an operation that returns a boolean. Which boolean it returns depends on whether the operand is falsey or not. So not x is not equivalent to x==False; it is equivalent to bool(x)==False.

5 Comments

cough Behold PHP's logic: [] == false; '' == false; [] != ''; Yup…
Hence my note at *
So, you are saying that it is not sensible to say that '' is False but it makes sense to say that 0 is? I know boolean logic is all about zeroes and ones, nevertheless, it makes as much sense to me to say that '' is False as it makes sense saying not '' is True.
The Python expression '' is False evaluates false, because is only returns True when the operands are references to the same object. '' is True also evaluates false, for exactly the same reason.
@TonyPower In Python bool is a subclass of int. This is not true of list or str. Basically False and True are just special instances of 0 and 1. eg. True + 2 == 3, whereas [] + 2 gives an error. If they are equal, then you need to be able to perform other types of operation with the strings and lists and ints.
1

Such a comparison isn't "Pythonic" (i.e. it isn't what an experienced Python programmer would naturally do). The Pythonic way to proceed is to use a value in a Boolean context such as an if statement, and leave the interpreter to apply the bool built-in invisibly to determine a True or False value. That's why people commonly write code such as

if lst:
    print(headers)
    for item in lst:
        print(item.format())
else:
    print(no_data_message)

rather than using the commonly-seen but less Pythonic if len(lst): or the even clumsier but still functionally correct if len(lst) > 0:.

In some respects unfortunately, Python's designer decided that True and False would be instances of the bool type, and that bool would be a subclass of int. As a result of this True compares equal to 1 and False compares equal to 0. Numerical conversion accounts for the floating-point (and, for that matter, complex) result.

But just because a bool(x) == True doesn't mean x == True, any more than bool(x) == False implies x == False. There are many other values that evaluate false, the best-known being

  • Numeric zeroes
  • None
  • The empty string
  • Empty containers (list, tuple, dict)

There's no way they can all be equal to each other!

2 Comments

It makes sense. Thanks.
This was the most valuable response for me in this question, since it actually explains why the __eq__ operator behaves this way -- because bool is a subtype of int. That was the missing insight for me on this piece of Python's language design.
0

If you want to check the official explanation, just cast your values like this:

print(bool(None) == False)
print(False == False)
print(bool(0) == False)
print(bool(0.0) == False)
print(bool(0j) == False)
print(bool('') == False)
print(bool(()) == False)
print(bool([]) == False)
print(bool({}) == False)

Comments

0

Because int(False) == 0 and int(True) == 1. This is what Python is doing when it tries to evaluate 0 == False.

On the other hand, bool('') == False. The same goes for bool([]) and bool({}).

The fact that x evaluates to True doesn't necessarily mean that x == True.

4 Comments

And if you switch things around? For example: False == 0 Is it doing False == bool(0)? If so, it should do the same with the empty string, and is not doing it.
"That is the reason that is should be used in checks against a boolean value and not ==" -- I don't see how this follows
The tests x is True and x is False are, for most values of x, both False, so your advice that is should be used is dangerously wrong.
Also, understand the mechanism that is used. The interpreter applies the bool function to values. bool returns either True or False.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.