There is no need to add a None check, as foo being None should be considered as a faulty input. Avoiding the possibility of foo being None from the beginning using static checks or testing is of course the preferred solution. But in reality we do not work in such optimal environments, at least I can say that from the perspective of data science, where often procedural, untested code is produced that runs only a few times. But I get your point and I think both paths are viable, but I am also okay with being in the wrong here,
My point is that if your variable can be
Nonethen you need the same pattern for the length check.So for the Pythonic version:
if (foo is not None) and not foo: ...For the explicit length check:
if (foo is not None) and (len(foo) == 0): ...Honestly you’re probably better off using type hints and catching such things with static checks and not adding the
Nonecheck.This is what I would come up with:
try: if len(foo) == 0: ... except TypeError: ...There is no need to add a
Nonecheck, asfoobeingNoneshould be considered as a faulty input. Avoiding the possibility offoobeingNonefrom the beginning using static checks or testing is of course the preferred solution. But in reality we do not work in such optimal environments, at least I can say that from the perspective of data science, where often procedural, untested code is produced that runs only a few times. But I get your point and I think both paths are viable, but I am also okay with being in the wrong here,