We Keep Coding

How to evaluate string as boolean in return statement?

I have a function like this in Python 3.4:
def is_value_valid(the_str):
return len(the_str) != 0
There are of course other ways to write this, such as return the_str != "". Are there more pythonic ways of writing this expression? I am familiar with the concepts of truthy/falsy, so I know I could shortcut this in an if condition:
if not the_str:
# do stuff
But the if expects a boolean result in its expression (this is my naive oversimplification here as a C++ programmer; I'm not familiar with standardese for this). However, there is nothing there to force the expression to evaluate to boolean in the return statement. I have tried just returning the string, and as long as no one treats the returned value as a string, it works just fine in calling code under boolean context. But from a post-condition perspective, I don't want to return a non-boolean type.

This is exactly what the bool() function does; return a boolean based on evaluating the truth value of the argument, just like an if statement would:
return bool(the_str)
Note that if doesn't expect a boolean value. It simply evaluates the truth value of the result of the expression.

>>> bool("foo")
True
>>> bool("")
False
Empty strings evaluate to False, but everything else evaluates to True. So this should not be used for any kind of parsing purposes.
So just return bool(the_str) in your case.

The if statement automatically evaluates a string as a boolean. However, if you want to return your string as a boolean you would simply do
return bool(the_str)

bool(the_str) is definitely the way to go, as several have mentioned.
But if your method requires that a string be given, I would also test for the string actually being a string (because bool(5) and bool("this is a string") will both return true.
return isinstance(the_str, str) and bool(the_str)
Or when used in an if statement:
if isinstance(the_str, str) and the_str:
# here we are sure it's a string whose length > 0

def is_value_valid(the_str):
return bool(len(the_str) != 0)
Using bool(x) converts the value to a boolean. This function takes len(the_str) != 0, evaluates it, converts it to bool, then returns the value.
The bool(x) is not required, you can just have the parentheses, because it will already return a bool, as evaluations return boolean by default.

Python - logical evaluation order in "if" statement

In Python we can do this:
if True or blah:
print("it's ok") # will be executed
if blah or True: # will raise a NameError
print("it's not ok")
class Blah:
pass
blah = Blah()
if blah or blah.notexist:
print("it's ok") # also will be executed
Can somebody point me to documentation on this feature?
Is it an implementation detail or feature of the language?
Is it good coding style to exploit this feature?

The or and and short circuit, see the Boolean operations documentation:
The expression x and y first evaluates x; if x is false, its value is returned; otherwise, y is evaluated and the resulting value is returned.
The expression x or y first evaluates x; if x is true, its value is returned; otherwise, y is evaluated and the resulting value is returned.
Note how, for and, y is only evaluated if x evaluates to a True value. Inversely, for or, y is only evaluated if x evaluated to a False value.
For the first expression True or blah, this means that blah is never evaluated, since the first part is already True.
Furthermore, your custom Blah class is considered True:
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. (See the __nonzero__() special method for a way to change this.)
Since your class does not implement a __nonzero__() method (nor a __len__ method), it is considered True as far as boolean expressions are concerned.
In the expression blah or blah.notexist, blah is thus true, and blah.notexist is never evaluated.
This feature is used quite regularly and effectively by experienced developers, most often to specify defaults:
some_setting = user_supplied_value or 'default literal'
object_test = is_it_defined and is_it_defined.some_attribute
Do be wary of chaining these and use a conditional expression instead where applicable.

This is called short-circuiting and is a feature of the language:
http://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/datastructures.html#more-on-conditions
The Boolean operators and and or are so-called short-circuit operators: their arguments are evaluated from left to right, and evaluation stops as soon as the outcome is determined. For example, if A and C are true but B is false, A and B and C does not evaluate the expression C. When used as a general value and not as a Boolean, the return value of a short-circuit operator is the last evaluated argument.

It's the way the operators logical operators, specifically or in python work: short circuit evaluation.
To better explain it, consider the following:
if True or False:
print('True') # never reaches the evaluation of False, because it sees True first.
if False or True:
print('True') # print's True, but it reaches the evaluation of True after False has been evaluated.
For more information see the following:
The official python documentation on boolean operations
A stack overflow question regarding short circuitry in python

With the or operator, values are evaluated from left to right. After one value evaluates to True, the entire statement evaluates to True (so no more values are evaluated).
Official documentation
It's a feature of the language
There is nothing wrong with using its functionality

Logical OR operation with -1

Why is the output different for the following logical operations that I tried in python?
-1 or 1
1 or -1
First returns -1 and second returns 1

and and or are both lazy; they evaluate operands until they can decide the result (and stops at the first False operand; or stops at the first True operand). They return the last operand evaluated, as noted in the documentation:
Note that neither and nor or restrict the value and type they return to False and True, but rather return the last evaluated argument. This is sometimes useful, e.g., if s is a string that should be replaced by a default value if it is empty, the expression s or 'foo' yields the desired value.

Read the documentation:
The expression x or y first evaluates x; if x is true, its value is returned; otherwise, y is evaluated and the resulting value is returned.

Both first parts -1 and 1 are evaluated True and therefore returned. The second part is ignored.

The or operator short-circuits. It returns the first value that is True in a boolean context, or the last evaluated expression otherwise. -1 and 1 are both True in a boolean context, so you get the first number.
0, None and all empty containers evaluate to False.
For example:
>>> 0 or 5
5
>>> '' or []
[]

In or condition if first condition is true, second is not evaluated,

I think the OP expects the return value of 'or' to be either True or False (as would be the case for boolean operators in some other languages.)
Python, like Perl, simply returns the first "true" value (where "true" means nonzero for numbers, non-empty for strings, not None, etc.)
Similarly, 'and' returns the last value if and only if both are "true".
He would probably be even more surprised by the result of something like
{'x':1} or [1,2,3]
Perl programmers often use this construct idiomatically (as in open(FILE, "foo.txt") || die; I don't know if that's as common in Python.
(see man)

Use of True, False, and None as return values in Python functions

I think that I fully understand this, but I just want to make sure since I keep seeing people say to never ever test against True, False, or None.
They suggest that routines should raise an error rather than return False or None. Anyway, I have many situations where I simply want to know if a flag is set or not so my function returns True or False. There are other situations where I have a function return None if there was no useful result. From my thinking, neither is problematic so long as I realize that I should never use:
if foo == True
if foo == False
if foo == None
and should instead use:
if foo is True
if foo is False
if foo is None
since True, False, and None are all singletons and will always evaluate the way I expect when using "is" rather than "==". Am I wrong here?
Along the same lines, would it be more Pythonic to modify the functions that sometimes return None so that they raise an error instead?
Say I have an instance method called "get_attr()" that retrieves an attribute from some file. In the case where it finds that the attribute I requested does not exist, is it appropriate to return None? Would it be better to have them raise an error and catch it later?

The advice isn't that you should never use True, False, or None. It's just that you shouldn't use if x == True.
if x == True is silly because == is just a binary operator! It has a return value of either True or False, depending on whether its arguments are equal or not. And if condition will proceed if condition is true. So when you write if x == True Python is going to first evaluate x == True, which will become True if x was True and False otherwise, and then proceed if the result of that is true. But if you're expecting x to be either True or False, why not just use if x directly!
Likewise, x == False can usually be replaced by not x.
There are some circumstances where you might want to use x == True. This is because an if statement condition is "evaluated in Boolean context" to see if it is "truthy" rather than testing exactly against True. For example, non-empty strings, lists, and dictionaries are all considered truthy by an if statement, as well as non-zero numeric values, but none of those are equal to True. So if you want to test whether an arbitrary value is exactly the value True, not just whether it is truthy, when you would use if x == True. But I almost never see a use for that. It's so rare that if you do ever need to write that, it's worth adding a comment so future developers (including possibly yourself) don't just assume the == True is superfluous and remove it.
Using x is True instead is actually worse. You should never use is with basic built-in immutable types like Booleans (True, False), numbers, and strings. The reason is that for these types we care about values, not identity. == tests that values are the same for these types, while is always tests identities.
Testing identities rather than values is bad because an implementation could theoretically construct new Boolean values rather than go find existing ones, leading to you having two True values that have the same value, but they are stored in different places in memory and have different identities. In practice I'm pretty sure True and False are always reused by the Python interpreter so this won't happen, but that's really an implementation detail. This issue trips people up all the time with strings, because short strings and literal strings that appear directly in the program source are recycled by Python so 'foo' is 'foo' always returns True. But it's easy to construct the same string 2 different ways and have Python give them different identities. Observe the following:
>>> stars1 = ''.join('*' for _ in xrange(100))
>>> stars2 = '*' * 100
>>> stars1 is stars2
False
>>> stars1 == stars2
True
EDIT: So it turns out that Python's equality on Booleans is a little unexpected (at least to me):
>>> True is 1
False
>>> True == 1
True
>>> True == 2
False
>>> False is 0
False
>>> False == 0
True
>>> False == 0.0
True
The rationale for this, as explained in the notes when bools were introduced in Python 2.3.5, is that the old behaviour of using integers 1 and 0 to represent True and False was good, but we just wanted more descriptive names for numbers we intended to represent truth values.
One way to achieve that would have been to simply have True = 1 and False = 0 in the builtins; then 1 and True really would be indistinguishable (including by is). But that would also mean a function returning True would show 1 in the interactive interpreter, so what's been done instead is to create bool as a subtype of int. The only thing that's different about bool is str and repr; bool instances still have the same data as int instances, and still compare equality the same way, so True == 1.
So it's wrong to use x is True when x might have been set by some code that expects that "True is just another way to spell 1", because there are lots of ways to construct values that are equal to True but do not have the same identity as it:
>>> a = 1L
>>> b = 1L
>>> c = 1
>>> d = 1.0
>>> a == True, b == True, c == True, d == True
(True, True, True, True)
>>> a is b, a is c, a is d, c is d
(False, False, False, False)
And it's wrong to use x == True when x could be an arbitrary Python value and you only want to know whether it is the Boolean value True. The only certainty we have is that just using x is best when you just want to test "truthiness". Thankfully that is usually all that is required, at least in the code I write!
A more sure way would be x == True and type(x) is bool. But that's getting pretty verbose for a pretty obscure case. It also doesn't look very Pythonic by doing explicit type checking... but that really is what you're doing when you're trying to test precisely True rather than truthy; the duck typing way would be to accept truthy values and allow any user-defined class to declare itself to be truthy.
If you're dealing with this extremely precise notion of truth where you not only don't consider non-empty collections to be true but also don't consider 1 to be true, then just using x is True is probably okay, because presumably then you know that x didn't come from code that considers 1 to be true. I don't think there's any pure-python way to come up with another True that lives at a different memory address (although you could probably do it from C), so this shouldn't ever break despite being theoretically the "wrong" thing to do.
And I used to think Booleans were simple!
End Edit
In the case of None, however, the idiom is to use if x is None. In many circumstances you can use if not x, because None is a "falsey" value to an if statement. But it's best to only do this if you're wanting to treat all falsey values (zero-valued numeric types, empty collections, and None) the same way. If you are dealing with a value that is either some possible other value or None to indicate "no value" (such as when a function returns None on failure), then it's much better to use if x is None so that you don't accidentally assume the function failed when it just happened to return an empty list, or the number 0.
My arguments for using == rather than is for immutable value types would suggest that you should use if x == None rather than if x is None. However, in the case of None Python does explicitly guarantee that there is exactly one None in the entire universe, and normal idiomatic Python code uses is.
Regarding whether to return None or raise an exception, it depends on the context.
For something like your get_attr example I would expect it to raise an exception, because I'm going to be calling it like do_something_with(get_attr(file)). The normal expectation of the callers is that they'll get the attribute value, and having them get None and assume that was the attribute value is a much worse danger than forgetting to handle the exception when you can actually continue if the attribute can't be found. Plus, returning None to indicate failure means that None is not a valid value for the attribute. This can be a problem in some cases.
For an imaginary function like see_if_matching_file_exists, that we provide a pattern to and it checks several places to see if there's a match, it could return a match if it finds one or None if it doesn't. But alternatively it could return a list of matches; then no match is just the empty list (which is also "falsey"; this is one of those situations where I'd just use if x to see if I got anything back).
So when choosing between exceptions and None to indicate failure, you have to decide whether None is an expected non-failure value, and then look at the expectations of code calling the function. If the "normal" expectation is that there will be a valid value returned, and only occasionally will a caller be able to work fine whether or not a valid value is returned, then you should use exceptions to indicate failure. If it will be quite common for there to be no valid value, so callers will be expecting to handle both possibilities, then you can use None.

Use if foo or if not foo. There isn't any need for either == or is for that.
For checking against None, is None and is not None are recommended. This allows you to distinguish it from False (or things that evaluate to False, like "" and []).
Whether get_attr should return None would depend on the context. You might have an attribute where the value is None, and you wouldn't be able to do that. I would interpret None as meaning "unset", and a KeyError would mean the key does not exist in the file.

If checking for truth:
if foo
For false:
if not foo
For none:
if foo is None
For non-none:
if foo is not None
For getattr() the correct behaviour is not to return None, but raise an AttributError error instead - unless your class is something like defaultdict.

Concerning whether to raise an exception or return None: it depends on the use case. Either can be Pythonic.
Look at Python's dict class for example. x[y] hooks into dict.__getitem__, and it raises a KeyError if key is not present. But the dict.get method returns the second argument (which is defaulted to None) if key is not present. They are both useful.
The most important thing to consider is to document that behaviour in the docstring, and make sure that your get_attr() method does what it says it does.
To address your other questions, use these conventions:
if foo:
# For testing truthiness
if not foo:
# For testing falsiness
if foo is None:
# Testing .. Noneliness ?
if foo is not None:
# Check explicitly avoids common bugs caused by empty sequences being false
Functions that return True or False should probably have a name that makes this obvious to improve code readability:
def is_running_on_windows():
return os.name == 'nt'
In Python 3 you can "type-hint" that:
>>> def is_running_on_windows() -> bool:
... return os.name == 'nt'
...
>>> is_running_on_windows.__annotations__
{'return': bool}

You can directly check that a variable contains a value or not, like if var or not var.

In the examples in PEP 8 (Style Guide for Python Code) document, I have seen that foo is None or foo is not None are being used instead of foo == None or foo != None.
Also using if boolean_value is recommended in this document instead of if boolean_value == True or if boolean_value is True. So I think if this is the official Python way. We Python guys should go on this way, too.

One thing to ensure is that nothing can reassign your variable. If it is not a Boolean in the end, relying on truthiness will lead to bugs. The beauty of conditional programming in dynamically typed languages :).
The following prints "no".
x = False
if x:
print 'yes'
else:
print 'no'
Now let's change x.
x = 'False'
Now the statement prints "yes", because the string is truthy.
if x:
print 'yes'
else:
print 'no'
This statement, however, correctly outputs "no".
if x == True:
print 'yes'
else:
print 'no'

In the case of your fictional getattr function, if the requested attribute always should be available but isn't then throw an error. If the attribute is optional then return None.

For True, not None:
if foo:
For false, None:
if not foo:

Python things which are neither True nor False

I just found this :
a = (None,)
print (a is True)
print (a is False)
print (a == True)
print (a == False)
print (a == None)
print (a is None)
if a : print "hello"
if not a : print "goodbye"
which produces :
False
False
False
False
False
False
hello
So a neither is, nor equals True nor False, but acts as True in an if statement.
Why?
Update :
actually, I've just realized that this isn't as obscure as I thought. I get the same result for a=2, as well (though not for a=0 or a=1, which are considered equal to False and True respectively)

I find almost all the explanations here unhelpful, so here is another try:
The confusion here is based on that testing with "is", "==" and "if" are three different things.
"is" tests identity, that is, if it's the same object. That is obviously not true in this case.
"==" tests value equality, and obviously the only built in objects with the values of True and False are the object True and False (with the exception of the numbers 0 and 1, of any numeric type).
And here comes the important part:
'if' tests on boolean values. That means that whatever expression you give it, it will be converted to either True or False. You can make the same with bool(). And bool((None,)) will return True. The things that will evaluate to False is listed in the docs (linked to by others here)
Now maybe this is only more clear in my head, but at least I tried. :)

a is a one-member tuple, which evaluates to True. is test identity of the object, therefore, you get False in all those test. == test equality of the objects, therefore, you get False again.
in if statement a __bool__ (or __nonzero__) used to evaluate the object, for a non-empty tuple it should return True, therefore you get True. hope that answers your question.
edit: the reason True and False are equal to 1 and 0 respectively is because bool type implemented as a subclass of int type.

Things in python don't have to be one of True or False.
When they're used as a text expression for if/while loops, they're converted to booleans. You can't use is or == to test what they evaluate to. You use bool( thing )
>>> a = (None,)
>>> bool(a)
True
Also note:
>>> 10 == True
False
>>> 10 is True
False
>>> bool(10)
True

TL;DR:
if and == are completely different operations. The if checks the truth value of a variable while == compares two variables. is also compares two variables but it compares if both reference the same object.
So it makes no sense to compare a variable with True, False or None to check it's truth value.
What happens when if is used on a variable?
In Python a check like if implicitly gets the bool of the argument. So
if something:
will be (under the hood) executed like:
if bool(something):
Note that you should never use the latter in your code because it's considered less pythonic and it's slower (because Python then uses two bools: bool(bool(something))). Always use the if something.
If you're interested in how it's evaluated by CPython 3.6:
Note that CPython doesn't exactly use hasattr here. It does check if the type of x implements the method but without going through the __getattribute__ method (hasattr would use that).
In Python2 the method was called __nonzero__ and not __bool__
What happens when variables are compared using ==?
The == will check for equality (often also called "value equality"). However this equality check doesn't coerce the operands (unlike in other programming languages). The value equality in Python is explicitly implemented. So you can do:
>>> 1 == True # because bool subclasses int, True is equal to 1 (and False to 0)
True
>>> 1.0 == True # because float implements __eq__ with int
True
>>> 1+1j == True # because complex implements __eq__ with int
True
However == will default to reference comparison (is) if the comparison isn't implemented by either operand. That's why:
>>> (None, ) == True
False
Because tuple doesn't "support" equality with int and vise-versa. Note that even comparing lists to tuples is "unsupported":
>>> [None] == (None, )
False
Just in case you're interested this is how CPython (3.6) implements equality (the orange arrows indicate if an operation returned the NotImplemented constant):
That's only roughly correct because CPython also checks if the type() of value1 or value2 implements __eq__ (without going through the __getattribute__ method!) before it's called (if it exists) or skipped (if it doesn't exist).
Note that the behavior in Python2 was significantly more lengthy (at least if the methods returned NotImplemented) and Python 2 also supported __cmp__,
What happens when variables are compared using is?
is is generally referred to as reference equality comparison operator. It only returns True if both variables refer to exactly the same object. In general variables that hold the same value can nevertheless refer to different objects:
>>> 1 is 1. # same value, different types
False
>>> a = 500
>>> a is 500 # same value, same type, different instances
False
Note that CPython uses cached values, so sometimes variables that "should" be different instances are actually the same instance. That's why I didn't use 500 is 500 (literals with the same value in the same line are always equal) and why I couldn't use 1 as example (because CPython re-uses the values -5 to 256).
But back to your comparisons: is compares references, that means it's not enough if both operands have the same type and value but they have to be the same reference. Given that they didn't even have the same type (you're comparing tuple with bool and NoneType objects) it's impossible that is would return True.
Note that True, False and None (and also NotImplemented and Ellipsis) are constants and singletons in CPython. That's not just an optimization in these cases.

(None,) is a tuple that contains an element, it's not empty and therefore does not evaluate to False in that context.

Because a=(None,) is a tuple containing a single element None
Try again with a=None and you will see there is a different result.
Also try a=() which is the empty tuple. This has a truth value of false

In Python every type can be converted to bool by using the bool() function or the __nonzero__ method.
Examples:
Sequences (lists, strings, ...) are converted to False when they are empty.
Integers are converted to False when they are equal to 0.
You can define this behavior in your own classes by overriding __nonzero__().
[Edit]
In your code, the tuple (None,) is converted using bool() in the if statements. Since it's non-empty, it evaluates to True.