RetroSearch Browse

Sun Nov 7 18:00:26 CET 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-November/049824.html

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:13:33 +1100, Anthony Baxter
<anthony at interlink.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > Abstract
> >
> >     None should be a callable object that when called with any
> >     arguments has no side effect and returns None.
> 
> My response to this is simply "yuck". This is a hack, abd I
> don't think it's worthwhile. If you want to test for None, test
> for None. Similarly, if you want a dictionary lookup to default
> to a no-op method, there's a perfectly simple way to spell it now:
> 
>     def defaultNoopMethod(*args, **kwargs): pass
>     somedict.get(key, defaultNoopMethod)
> 
> You can even do this as a one-liner using a lambda if you want.

Just a question, and I sincerely hope it's not a dumb one. Python
already have a noop statement ("pass"). Now, what is being requested
is a standard noop callable. Does it make sense -- both in
theorethical and practical terms -- to allow a statement such as
"pass" to be used in both situations? In other words, does it make
sense to have a "unification" of sorts?

Thanks for any pointers,

-- 
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: carribeiro at gmail.com
mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-November/049824.html below:

PEP 336, "Make None Callable", by Andrew McClelland