fix comparisons to literals #340
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Change comparisons to literals from `is` to `==`. Comparisons to literals with `is` aren't Pythonic because `is` uses the underlying object ID to determine whether objects match, whereas `==` does a value comparison. By switching the comparisons to `==`, we have a more consistent set of comparisons, because we don't rely on object IDs but rather the values themselves, which is what we're looking for, anyhow.
|
The blocking check seems to check the entire |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Change comparisons to literals from
isto==.Comparisons to literals with
isaren't Pythonic becauseisuses the underlying object ID to determine whether objects match, whereas==does a value comparison. By switching the comparisons to==, we have a more consistent set of comparisons, because we don't rely on object IDs but rather the values themselves, which is what we're looking for, anyhow.This partially fixes #298 , clearing some of the
SyntaxWarnings raised.