Because nothing isn’t something, and something is true. It’s base Boolean logic where everything is either true or false. Null/nothing is false.
It’s a weird way to think about conditionals, but it makes sense when you use them in real examples. In my case, I use them like this when I need to make sure that a variable has a value. So I can do something like
If(variable){do things with the variable}else{do stuff when the variable doesn’t exist}
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”
Because nothing isn’t something, and something is true. It’s base Boolean logic where everything is either true or false. Null/nothing is false.
It’s a weird way to think about conditionals, but it makes sense when you use them in real examples. In my case, I use them like this when I need to make sure that a variable has a value. So I can do something like
If(variable){do things with the variable}else{do stuff when the variable doesn’t exist}
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
That makes a lot more sense, thanks I did see in the syntax highlighting that it was a keyword but forgot that none of them took parameters.
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”