Yea and then you use “not” with a variable name that does not make it obvious that it is a list and another person who reads the code thinks it is a bool. Hell a couple of months later you yourself wont even understand that it is a list. You should not sacrifice code readability for over optimization, this is phyton after all I don’t think list lengths will be your bottle neck.

Strongly disagree that not x implies to programmers that x is a bool.

well it does not imply directly per se since you can “not” many things but I feel like my first assumption would be it is used in a bool context

I would say it depends heavily on the language. In Python, it’s very common that different objects have some kind of Boolean interpretation, so assuming that an object is a bool because it is used in a Boolean context is a bit silly.

Well fair enough but I still like the fact that len makes the aim and the object more transparent on a quick look through the code which is what I am trying to get at. The supporting argument on bools wasn’t’t very to the point I agree.

That being said is there an application of “not” on other classes which cannot be replaced by some other more transparent operator (I confess I only know the bool and length context)? I would rather have transparently named operators rather than having to remember what “not” does on ten different types. I like duck typing as much as the next guy, but when it is so opaque as in the case of not, I prefer alternatives. For instance having open or read on different objects which does really read or open some data vs not some object god knows what it does I should memorise each case.

I definitely agree that len is the preferred choice for checking the emptiness of an object, for the reasons you mention. I’m just pointing out that assuming a variable is a bool because it’s used in a Boolean context is a bit silly, especially in Python or other languages where any object can have a truthiness value, and where this is commonly utilised.