What is the motivation for returning `None` on empty splits? I feel like this creates an unnecessary asymmetry. I don't personally have a use case for the this feature so I may be missing something but it seems like it would force an annoying pattern:
Split is used by the interpreter to implement except*. It needs to check whether the first value of the split
is empty or not (this determines whether the except* clause executes).
This is more efficiently done with None. And then there is creating an object that you don't need.
The intention is that you use except* rather than do this:
```
try:
foo()
except ExceptionGroup as eg:
g1, g2 = eg.split(predicate)
for e in g1:
handle_true(e)
for e in g2:
handle_false(e)
```
(as an aside - exception groups ended up
not
being iterable - that is one of the rejected ideas, see explanation there).
Also this creates an subtle difference with subgroup:
```
g1, g2 = eg.split(predicate)
h1, h2 = eg.subgroup(predicate), eg.subgroup(lambda e: not predicate(e))
assert g1 == h1 and g2 == h2 # only true if `None not in {g1, g2}`
```
An empty subgroup should also return None. I see this is not mentioned in the PEP, so I will add it. Thanks.
Irit