The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to memes@lemmy.world · 3 days agoDon't do itlemmy.worldimagemessage-square31fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10
arrow-up11arrow-down1imageDon't do itlemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to memes@lemmy.world · 3 days agomessage-square31fedilink
minus-squareZiglin (it/they)@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 days agoI understand that, it makes sense. But why does it not throw an error? The parameter is missing after all.
minus-squaretakeda@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·2 days agoActually the explanation is wrong. not() is actually not () not is a keyword not a function. Boolean of empty tuple is False and then not negates it. I explained it better here: https://lemm.ee/post/61594443/19783421
minus-squarespooky2092@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 days agoNo it’s not, “” (a null/empty string) is the parameter. Not every function needs a parameter to be valid, and negation is one of them. Negating nothing is something, so “not()” = “not(null)” = “not(false)” = “true”
I understand that, it makes sense. But why does it not throw an error? The parameter is missing after all.
Actually the explanation is wrong.
not()is actually
notis a keyword not a function.Boolean of empty tuple is
Falseand thennotnegates it.I explained it better here:
https://lemm.ee/post/61594443/19783421
No it’s not, “” (a null/empty string) is the parameter. Not every function needs a parameter to be valid, and negation is one of them. Negating nothing is something, so “not()” = “not(null)” = “not(false)” = “true”