There's nothing wrong with `is l`. Sounds like you're just splitting hairs.
He's defending against None because calling __len__ on None results in an exception.
3.14159 also results in an exception but it's far more likely that the object passed was None than that it was a completely different type than the one expected.
He's defending against None because calling __len__ on None results in an exception.
3.14159 also results in an exception but it's far more likely that the object passed was None than that it was a completely different type than the one expected.