RetroSearch Browse

Tue Aug 5 17:13:12 CEST 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/135669.html

Am 04.08.14 09:12, schrieb Larry Hastings:
> It's my contention that "nullable" is the correct name.  But I've been
> asked to bring up the topic for discussion, to see if a consensus forms
> around this or around some other name.

I have personally no problems with calling a type "nullable" even in
Python, and, as a type *adjective* this seems to be the right choice
(i.e. I wouldn't say "noneable int" or "allow_none int"; the former is
no established or intuitive term, the latter is not an adjective).

As a type *flag*, flexibility in naming is greater. zeroes=True formally
creates a subtype (of string), and it doesn't hurt that it is not an
adjective. "allow_zeroes" might be more descriptive. bitwise=True
doesn't really create a subtype of int. For the feature in question,
I find both "allow_none" and "nullable" acceptable; "noneable" is not.

Regards,
Martin

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-August/135669.html below:

[Python-Dev] Surely "nullable" is a reasonable name?