<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 19:38, Benjamin Peterson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benjamin@python.org">benjamin@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
2009/7/23 Brett Cannon <<a href="mailto:brett@python.org">brett@python.org</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">> None in Python 3.1 is really useless in terms of its semantics in relative<br>
> imports; importlib doesn't support it and still passes as __import__ (at<br>
> least last time I ran the test suite that way). I thought we had agreed a<br>
> while back that supporting None was not warranted in Python 3.0? Otherwise I<br>
> will do whatever work is necessary for this to happen.<br>
<br>
</div>I think it's still nice for the rare cases where you need to trick a<br>
module into thinking another one doesn't exist.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>But None does not strictly mean "I don't exist". None is supposed to trigger an another import attempt for the module with a top-level name. It's that extra import trigger that has no real use in 3.0 and just complicates import semantics (IMO) needlessly. If you want a module to not exist then you either stick something else in (e.g. '42') or we remove the special semantics for None (which I thought we had).</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Brett</div></div>