Is there a simple way of testing if the generator has no items, like peek
, hasNext
, isEmpty
, something along those lines?

- 1,952
- 2
- 17
- 28

- 33,953
- 24
- 61
- 87
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you could make a truly generic solution to *any* generator, it would be the equivalent of setting breakpoints on the yield statements and having the ability to "step backward". Would that mean cloning the stack frame on yields and restoring them on StopIteration? – Mar 19 '09 at 13:07
-
Well, I guess restore them StopIteration or not, but at least StopIteration would tell you it was empty. Yeah I need sleep... – Mar 19 '09 at 13:19
-
4I think I know why he wants this. If you're doing web development with templates, and passing the return value into a template like Cheetah or something, empty list `[]` is conveniently Falsey so you can do an if check on it and do special behavior for something or nothing. Generators are true even if they yield no elements. – jpsimons Mar 08 '11 at 05:02
-
1Here's my use case... I'm using `glob.iglob("filepattern")` on a user-supplied wildcard pattern, and I want to warn the user if the pattern does not match any files. Sure I can work around this in various ways, but it's useful to be able to cleanly test whether the iterator came up empty or not. – LarsH Jan 24 '13 at 16:48
-
May be use this solution: http://stackoverflow.com/a/11467686/463758 – balki Nov 17 '15 at 20:15
-
Just to mention some use case: extract items from several iterators, like `zip`, but in lockstep -- either all or nothing (either an item is extracted from each iterator, or none of the iterators is advanced). – Alexey Jul 06 '19 at 12:15
-
Another thing to consider: Does it need to be a generator at all? `list(my_generator)` works **a lot** like `my_generator` and is VERY simple! And `len` works great on lists to tell you if they are empty! – Josiah Yoder May 29 '23 at 19:14
25 Answers
Suggestion:
def peek(iterable):
try:
first = next(iterable)
except StopIteration:
return None
return first, itertools.chain([first], iterable)
Usage:
res = peek(mysequence)
if res is None:
# sequence is empty. Do stuff.
else:
first, mysequence = res
# Do something with first, maybe?
# Then iterate over the sequence:
for element in mysequence:
# etc.

- 2,694
- 2
- 23
- 24

- 41,203
- 19
- 62
- 77
-
3I don't quite get the point of returning the first element twice in `return first, itertools.chain([first], rest)`. – njzk2 Aug 15 '14 at 19:52
-
11@njzk2 I was going for a "peek" operation (hence the function name). [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek_%28data_type_operation%29) "peek is an operation which returns the value of the top of the collection without removing the value from the data" – John Fouhy Jun 10 '15 at 22:04
-
2This won't work if the generator is designed to yield None. `def gen(): for pony in range(4): yield None if pony == 2 else pony` – Paul Nov 03 '16 at 21:53
-
9@Paul Look at the return values closely. If the generator is done -- i.e., not returning `None`, but raising `StopIteration` -- the result of the function is `None`. Otherwise, it's a tuple, which is not `None`. – Nic Jan 20 '17 at 23:57
-
2Won't a large number of `peek` calls create a never ending chain of `itertools.chain` objects containing references to other `itertools.chain` objects? – Mateen Ulhaq Nov 22 '18 at 18:38
-
is not working for empty generators like https://stackoverflow.com/a/60062620/1683626 – y0j0 Feb 05 '20 at 13:08
-
1For projects with `more-itertools` installed, you can use the truth value of `more_itertools.peekable(mysequence)` to check if a generator is empty or not: https://more-itertools.readthedocs.io/en/stable/api.html?highlight=peek#more_itertools.peekable – wizpig64 Apr 16 '22 at 20:36
-
If you can afford to bring the entire generator into memory, list(generator) is a nice simple way -- lists behave like generators, e.g., in a for-each loop, but there are no worries about "eating" anything out of the generator. – Josiah Yoder May 29 '23 at 19:11
The simple answer to your question: no, there is no simple way. There are a whole lot of work-arounds.
There really shouldn't be a simple way, because of what generators are: a way to output a sequence of values without holding the sequence in memory. So there's no backward traversal.
You could write a has_next function or maybe even slap it on to a generator as a method with a fancy decorator if you wanted to.

- 12,385
- 6
- 38
- 51
-
2fair enough, that makes sense. i knew there was no way of finding the length of a generator, but thought i might have missed a way of finding if it is initially going to generate anything at all. – Dan Mar 19 '09 at 17:31
-
1Oh, and for reference, I tried implementing my own "fancy decorator" suggestion. HARD. Apparently copy.deepcopy doesn't work on generators. – David Berger Mar 19 '09 at 19:50
-
You can't find the length of a generator -- you can only run the generator, and generate the entire sequence in memory and see how long the sequence turned out to be. – S.Lott Mar 19 '09 at 20:06
-
93I'm not sure I can agree with "there shouldn't be a simple way". There are plenty of abstractions in computer science that are designed to output a sequence of values without holding the sequence in memory, but that allow the programmer to ask whether there is another value without removing it from the "queue" if there is. There is such thing as single peek-ahead without requiring "backward traversal". That's not to say an iterator design must supply such a feature, but it sure is useful. Maybe you're objecting on the basis that the first value might change after the peek? – LarsH Jan 24 '13 at 16:50
-
12I'm objecting on the grounds that a typical implementation doesn't even calculate a value until it is needed. One could force the interface to do this, but that might be sub-optimal for lightweight implementations. – David Berger Jan 30 '13 at 20:54
-
11@S.Lott you don't need to generate the entire sequence to know if the sequence is empty or not. One element's worth of storage is sufficient - see my answer. – Mark Ransom Jun 13 '14 at 06:34
-
Storing just the next value is enough to know if there is a next value, so you don't need to store the whole sequence. – TheGrimmScientist Aug 11 '15 at 21:25
-
1It's not that there shouldn't be a simple way, there can't be -- generators are more general than "output a sequence of values without holding the sequence in memory". Sometimes the values are in memory, sometimes the number can't be known until computing the answer, cf. the halting problem. The important thing is a generator doesn't *care*. – Qualia Mar 12 '19 at 23:43
-
1From the perspective of "should" or "shouldn't", if a generator has a potentially large range of values from 0 to thousands or millions, it may be beneficial to know in advance if this is a zero work case in hand, and avoid lots of set up for an expensive operation. Just being able to check ahead for the existence of at least one value in the generator can be beneficial. – NeilG Feb 18 '20 at 00:04
-
1has_next seems like a nice idea until you realize there is simply no one-size fits all approach. Correct behavior in case of an error or really slow IO is deeply subjective. Throwing an exception on has_next may not be right in all contexts. Holding two items in memory may be all kinds of wrong. eg `for request in source: respond(request)`. You must not cache two here, or you may dead-lock a client that is waiting on your response. If you want to peek ahead, implement your own peek_ahead wrapper with `__next__()` and `has_next()`. – Philip Couling Mar 11 '20 at 16:32
-
1Too complicated a description and no visible solution for 55 upvotes!!! – Apostolos Oct 01 '20 at 20:35
A simple way is to use the optional parameter for next() which is used if the generator is exhausted (or empty). For example:
_exhausted = object()
if next(some_generator, _exhausted) is _exhausted:
print('generator is empty')

- 754
- 6
- 14
-
1Why objects and all that stuff? Simply: `if next(itreable,-1) == -1` then the gen is empty! – Apostolos Oct 01 '20 at 20:37
-
9@Apostolos Because `next(iter([-1, -2, -3]), -1) == -1` is `True`. In other words, any iterable with first element equal to `-1` will appear as empty using your condition. – Jeyekomon Oct 05 '20 at 10:13
-
OK, then use any value other than '-1' that you are certain it will not be included in the iterable (A long number, a string, etc. '-1' is only an example.) – Apostolos Oct 06 '20 at 08:17
-
2@Apostolos In the simple case, yes, that is the solution. But it fails if you plan to create a general tool for any iterable, without constraints. – Jeyekomon Oct 06 '20 at 15:40
-
You can always use extraordinary values. And, at the end of the story ... What's the big deal?! :) – Apostolos Oct 08 '20 at 06:48
-
2@Apostolos The `object()` is the extraordinary value that won't be contained in the generator. – Mikko Koho Oct 22 '20 at 14:27
-
-
11N.B.; this is still a "peek" function and will take off one element from the generator. – phlaxyr Nov 03 '20 at 19:24
-
Edited to check for identity (since `_exhausted` is an object this is equivalent to == but faster) – Mr_and_Mrs_D Oct 28 '21 at 11:08
Quick-dirty solution:
next(my_generator(), None) is not None
Or replace None
by whatever value you know it's not in your generator.
Edit: Yes, this will skip 1 item in the generator. Sometimes, however, I check whether a generator is empty only for validation purposes, then don't really use it. Otherwise, I do something like:
def foo(self):
if next(self.my_generator(), None) is None:
raise Exception("Not initiated")
for x in self.my_generator():
...
That is, this works if your generator comes from a function, as in my_generator()
.

- 4,786
- 5
- 46
- 46
-
5
-
11Probably because this forces you to actually consume the generator instead of just testing if it’s empty. – bfontaine Aug 09 '16 at 22:03
-
6It's bad because the moment you call next(generator, None) you will skip 1 item if it is available – Nathan Do Nov 30 '16 at 08:06
-
2Correct, you are going to miss 1st element of your gen and also you are going to consume your gen rather testing if its empty. – A.J. Mar 05 '20 at 07:35
-
This is not a general purpose solution as it will only work for those generators for which we know beforehand a value the generator will never return, e.g., `None`. – Mikko Koho Oct 29 '21 at 18:14
The best approach, IMHO, would be to avoid a special test. Most times, use of a generator is the test:
thing_generated = False
# Nothing is lost here. if nothing is generated,
# the for block is not executed. Often, that's the only check
# you need to do. This can be done in the course of doing
# the work you wanted to do anyway on the generated output.
for thing in my_generator():
thing_generated = True
do_work(thing)
If that's not good enough, you can still perform an explicit test. At this point, thing
will contain the last value generated. If nothing was generated, it will be undefined - unless you've already defined the variable. You could check the value of thing
, but that's a bit unreliable. Instead, just set a flag within the block and check it afterward:
if not thing_generated:
print "Avast, ye scurvy dog!"

- 5,185
- 25
- 41
-
4This solution will try to consume the whole generator thus making it unusable for infinite generators. – Viktor Stískala Jul 02 '13 at 12:53
-
2@ViktorStískala: I don't see your point. It would be foolish to test if an infinite generator produced any results. – vezult Nov 07 '13 at 21:24
-
I wanted to point out that your solution could contain break in the for loop, because you are not processing the other results and it's useless for them to generated. `range(10000000)` is finite generator (Python 3), but you don't need to go through all the items to find out if it generates something. – Viktor Stískala Nov 12 '13 at 14:53
-
3@ViktorStískala: Understood. However, my point is this: Generally, you actually want to operate on the generator output. In my example, if nothing is generated, you now know it. Otherwise, you operate on the generated output as intended - "The use of the generator is the test". No need for special tests, or pointlessly consuming the generator output. I've edited my answer to clarify this. – vezult Nov 12 '13 at 15:39
Prompted by Mark Ransom, here's a class that you can use to wrap any iterator so that you can peek ahead, push values back onto the stream and check for empty. It's a simple idea with a simple implementation that I've found very handy in the past.
class Pushable:
def __init__(self, iter):
self.source = iter
self.stored = []
def __iter__(self):
return self
def __bool__(self):
if self.stored:
return True
try:
self.stored.append(next(self.source))
except StopIteration:
return False
return True
def push(self, value):
self.stored.append(value)
def peek(self):
if self.stored:
return self.stored[-1]
value = next(self.source)
self.stored.append(value)
return value
def __next__(self):
if self.stored:
return self.stored.pop()
return next(self.source)

- 707
- 6
- 9
-
UPDATE: I thought it was worth turning this into a PyPI package, since I have used it quite a few times in the past. Please find a slightly more elaborate version here - https://pypi.org/project/pushable/ – sfkleach Mar 21 '23 at 11:27
Just fell on this thread and realized that a very simple and easy to read answer was missing:
def is_empty(generator):
for item in generator:
return False
return True
If we are not suppose to consume any item then we need to re-inject the first item into the generator:
def is_empty_no_side_effects(generator):
try:
item = next(generator)
def my_generator():
yield item
yield from generator
return my_generator(), False
except StopIteration:
return (_ for _ in []), True
Example:
>>> g=(i for i in [])
>>> g,empty=is_empty_no_side_effects(g)
>>> empty
True
>>> g=(i for i in range(10))
>>> g,empty=is_empty_no_side_effects(g)
>>> empty
False
>>> list(g)
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

- 99
- 1
- 2
I hate to offer a second solution, especially one that I would not use myself, but, if you absolutely had to do this and to not consume the generator, as in other answers:
def do_something_with_item(item):
print item
empty_marker = object()
try:
first_item = my_generator.next()
except StopIteration:
print 'The generator was empty'
first_item = empty_marker
if first_item is not empty_marker:
do_something_with_item(first_item)
for item in my_generator:
do_something_with_item(item)
Now I really don't like this solution, because I believe that this is not how generators are to be used.

- 40,967
- 12
- 95
- 109
All you need to do to see if a generator is empty is to try to get the next result. Of course if you're not ready to use that result then you have to store it to return it again later.
Here's a wrapper class that can be added to an existing iterator to add an __nonzero__
test, so you can see if the generator is empty with a simple if
. It can probably also be turned into a decorator.
class GenWrapper:
def __init__(self, iter):
self.source = iter
self.stored = False
def __iter__(self):
return self
def __nonzero__(self):
if self.stored:
return True
try:
self.value = next(self.source)
self.stored = True
except StopIteration:
return False
return True
def __next__(self): # use "next" (without underscores) for Python 2.x
if self.stored:
self.stored = False
return self.value
return next(self.source)
Here's how you'd use it:
with open(filename, 'r') as f:
f = GenWrapper(f)
if f:
print 'Not empty'
else:
print 'Empty'
Note that you can check for emptiness at any time, not just at the start of the iteration.

- 299,747
- 42
- 398
- 622
-
This is headed in the right direction. It should be modified to allow peeking ahead as far as you wish, storing as many results as needed. Ideally it would allow for pushing of arbitrary items onto the head of the stream. A pushable-iterator is a very useful abstraction that I often use. – sfkleach Jun 12 '16 at 19:04
-
1@sfkleach I don't see a need to complicate this for multiple peek-ahead, it's quite useful as is and answers the question. Even though this is an old question it's still getting the occasional look, so if you want to leave your own answer someone might find it useful. – Mark Ransom Jun 22 '18 at 20:50
-
Mark's quite right that his solution answers the question, which is the key point. I should have phrased it better. What I meant was that pushable-iterators with unbounded pushback are an idiom I have found extremely useful & the implementation is arguably even simpler. As suggested I will post the variant code. – sfkleach Jan 07 '20 at 12:13
I realize that this post is 5 years old at this point, but I found it while looking for an idiomatic way of doing this, and did not see my solution posted. So for posterity:
import itertools
def get_generator():
"""
Returns (bool, generator) where bool is true iff the generator is not empty.
"""
gen = (i for i in [0, 1, 2, 3, 4])
a, b = itertools.tee(gen)
try:
a.next()
except StopIteration:
return (False, b)
return (True, b)
Of course, as I'm sure many commentators will point out, this is hacky and only works at all in certain limited situations (where the generators are side-effect free, for example). YMMV.

- 447
- 5
- 12
-
4This will only call the `gen` generator once for each item, so side-effects are not too bad a problem. But it will store a copy of everything that has been pulled from the generator via `b`, but not via `a`, so the memory implications are similar to just running `list(gen)` and checking that. – Matthias Fripp May 08 '17 at 22:40
-
It has two issues. 1. This itertool may require significant auxiliary storage (depending on how much temporary data needs to be stored). In general, if one iterator uses most or all of the data before another iterator starts, it is faster to use list() instead of tee(). 2. tee iterators are not threadsafe. A RuntimeError may be raised when using simultaneously iterators returned by the same tee() call, even if the original iterable is threadsafe. – A.J. Mar 05 '20 at 07:43
Sorry for the obvious approach, but the best way would be to do:
for item in my_generator:
print item
Now you have detected that the generator is empty while you are using it. Of course, item will never be displayed if the generator is empty.
This may not exactly fit in with your code, but this is what the idiom of the generator is for: iterating, so perhaps you might change your approach slightly, or not use generators at all.

- 40,967
- 12
- 95
- 109
-
Or... questioner could provide some hint as to *why* one would try to detect an empty generator? – S.Lott Mar 19 '09 at 10:17
-
did you mean "nothing will be displayed since generator is empty"? – SilentGhost Mar 19 '09 at 10:17
-
S.Lott. I agree. I can't see why. But I think even if there was a reason, the problem might be better turned to use each item instead. – Ali Afshar Mar 19 '09 at 10:25
-
4
I found only this solution as working for empty iterations as well.
def is_generator_empty(generator):
a, b = itertools.tee(generator)
try:
next(a)
except StopIteration:
return True, b
return False, b
is_empty, generator = is_generator_empty(generator)
Or if you do not want to use exception for this try to use
def is_generator_empty(generator):
a, b = itertools.tee(generator)
for item in a:
return False, b
return True, b
is_empty, generator = is_generator_empty(generator)
In the marked solution you are not able to use it for empty generators like
def get_empty_generator():
while False:
yield None
generator = get_empty_generator()

- 3,369
- 5
- 31
- 52
>>> gen = (i for i in [])
>>> next(gen)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#43>", line 1, in <module>
next(gen)
StopIteration
At the end of generator StopIteration
is raised, since in your case end is reached immediately, exception is raised. But normally you shouldn't check for existence of next value.
another thing you can do is:
>>> gen = (i for i in [])
>>> if not list(gen):
print('empty generator')

- 307,395
- 66
- 306
- 293
-
2Which does actually consume the whole generator. Sadly, it's not clear from the question if this is desirable or undesirable behavior. – S.Lott Mar 19 '09 at 10:15
-
-
1I realise this is old, but using 'list()' can't be the best way, if the list generated is not empty but in fact large then this is needlessly wasteful – Chris_Rands Feb 07 '17 at 18:16
Simply wrap the generator with itertools.chain, put something that will represent the end of the iterable as the second iterable, then simply check for that.
Ex:
import itertools
g = some_iterable
eog = object()
wrap_g = itertools.chain(g, [eog])
Now all that's left is to check for that value we appended to the end of the iterable, when you read it then that will signify the end
for value in wrap_g:
if value == eog: # DING DING! We just found the last element of the iterable
pass # Do something

- 39,374
- 15
- 132
- 179
-
Use `eog = object()` instead of assuming that `float('-inf')` will never occur in the iterable. – bfontaine Aug 09 '16 at 22:04
-
In my case I needed to know if a host of generators was populated before I passed it on to a function, which merged the items, i.e., zip(...)
. The solution is similar, but different enough, from the accepted answer:
Definition:
def has_items(iterable):
try:
return True, itertools.chain([next(iterable)], iterable)
except StopIteration:
return False, []
Usage:
def filter_empty(iterables):
for iterable in iterables:
itr_has_items, iterable = has_items(iterable)
if itr_has_items:
yield iterable
def merge_iterables(iterables):
populated_iterables = filter_empty(iterables)
for items in zip(*populated_iterables):
# Use items for each "slice"
My particular problem has the property that the iterables are either empty or has exactly the same number of entries.

- 8,955
- 3
- 53
- 79
Use the peek function in cytoolz.
from cytoolz import peek
from typing import Tuple, Iterable
def is_empty_iterator(g: Iterable) -> Tuple[Iterable, bool]:
try:
_, g = peek(g)
return g, False
except StopIteration:
return g, True
The iterator returned by this function will be equivalent to the original one passed in as an argument.

- 16,336
- 12
- 75
- 111
Just to try to help with my "2 cents", I am going to describe my experience:
I have a generator that I need slicing it using itertools.islice
into small generators. Then to check if my sub generators are empty or not, I just convert/consume them to a small list and I check if the list is empty or not.
For example:
from itertools import islice
def generator(max_yield=10):
a = 0
while True:
a += 1
if a > max_yield:
raise StopIteration()
yield a
tg = generator()
label = 1
while True:
itg = list(islice(tg, 3))
if not itg: # <-- I check if the list is empty or not
break
for i in itg:
print(f'#{label} - {i}')
label += 1
Output:
#1 - 1
#1 - 2
#1 - 3
#2 - 4
#2 - 5
#2 - 6
#3 - 7
#3 - 8
#3 - 9
#4 - 10
Maybe this is not the best approach, mainly because it consumes the generator, however it works to me.
Inspecting the generator before iterating over it conforms to the LBYL coding style. Another approach (EAFP) would be to iterate over it and then check whether it was empty or not.
is_empty = True
for item in generator:
is_empty = False
do_something(item)
if is_empty:
print('Generator is empty')
This approach also handles well infinite generators.

- 2,878
- 2
- 27
- 37
If you need to know before you use the generator, then no, there is no simple way. If you can wait until after you have used the generator, there is a simple way:
was_empty = True
for some_item in some_generator:
was_empty = False
do_something_with(some_item)
if was_empty:
handle_already_empty_generator_case()

- 63,992
- 20
- 159
- 237
Here's a simple decorator which wraps the generator, so it returns None if empty. This can be useful if your code needs to know whether the generator will produce anything before looping through it.
def generator_or_none(func):
"""Wrap a generator function, returning None if it's empty. """
def inner(*args, **kwargs):
# peek at the first item; return None if it doesn't exist
try:
next(func(*args, **kwargs))
except StopIteration:
return None
# return original generator otherwise first item will be missing
return func(*args, **kwargs)
return inner
Usage:
import random
@generator_or_none
def random_length_generator():
for i in range(random.randint(0, 10)):
yield i
gen = random_length_generator()
if gen is None:
print('Generator is empty')
One example where this is useful is in templating code - i.e. jinja2
{% if content_generator %}
<section>
<h4>Section title</h4>
{% for item in content_generator %}
{{ item }}
{% endfor %
</section>
{% endif %}

- 9,963
- 5
- 43
- 46
-
This calls the generator function twice, so will incur the start-up cost of the generator twice. That could be substantial if, for example, the generator function is a database query. – Ian Goldby Feb 21 '19 at 11:21
peekable
from more-itertools
allows checking whether it's exhausted by checking its truth value. Demo with one empty and one non-empty iterator:
from more_itertools import peekable
for source in '', 'foobar':
it = iter(source)
if it := peekable(it):
print('values:', *it)
else:
print('empty')
Output:
empty
values: f o o b a r

- 23,480
- 7
- 29
- 65
This is an old and answered question, but as no one has shown it before, here it goes:
for _ in generator:
break
else:
print('Empty')

- 388
- 5
- 14
-
1But how is that useful when you do want to actually do some work with generator items? Just inserting this snippet before main code looks very dirty WA – The Godfather Sep 18 '20 at 09:59
-
This obviously doesn't work if generator producing more than one item. – The Godfather Sep 21 '20 at 20:17
There's a very simple solution: if next(generator,-1) == -1
then the generator is empty!

- 3,115
- 25
- 28
-
4
-
1
-
What consuming are you talking about? This is done **once** at start! My solution is *certainly not wrong*! – Apostolos Jan 16 '21 at 18:57
-
Although this doesn't answer the exact question as stated, I'm going to upvote it because it does deal with a common case where finding out if a generator would return anything. Quite often I find myself wanting to write something like `matches = filter(lambda x: ..., my_list); return next(matches) if any_results(matches) else None`. I only just learned that this can be written as `matches = filter(lambda x: ..., my_list); return next(matches, None)` – Tom Apr 09 '21 at 15:14
-
-
I actually used a loop in a similar way just now and I'm wondering why it's wrong? I did while next(peakIterator, None) is not None: doStuff() – pythlang Jun 02 '21 at 15:02
-
1"My solution is certainly not wrong" is a pretty bold statement. The note about "consuming" means that by applying `next` to your generator, you're extracting its first value and use it to test its emptiness. The value is not stored in any variable and thus immediately discarded. When you later use the generator, the first value will be missing. Please learn more about generators. – Jeyekomon Oct 17 '22 at 08:59
I solved it by using the sum function. See below for an example I used with glob.iglob (which returns a generator).
def isEmpty():
files = glob.iglob(search)
if sum(1 for _ in files):
return True
return False
*This will probably not work for HUGE generators but should perform nicely for smaller lists
bool(generator) will return the correct result

- 116
- 3
-
-
I am not sure that is correct though: `>>> def foo(): ... if False: ... yield 99 ... >>> bool(foo()) True >>> next(foo()) Traceback (most recent call last): File "
", line 1, in – sfkleach Feb 21 '22 at 16:34StopIteration ` Tested on Python 3.9.10. -
2**This is incorrect.** An empty generator still gets `True` when converted to Boolean. – xmcp Jun 14 '22 at 18:41