Frankly, type(None) only exists in the language because all objects have a type, and have to be introspectable in a uniform manner. This is occasionally useful to introspection code, but of no practical consequence for most users. Using type(None) as a cheap alternative to lambda:None strikes me as an invitation for unreadable code -- since type(None) doesn't have much of a practical purpose, users have no expectation of what it would do (even though you can reason it out). --Guido On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> wrote:
Does it? What else would you use type(None) for? An isinstance() check?
Devin
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
Am 07.08.2011 01:34, schrieb dag.odenhall@gmail.com:
On 29 July 2011 19:03, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:
I think it is fine if type(None)() returns None instead of raising an exception.
+1, I've often wanted it and felt (lambda: None) was somewhat clunky.
It makes its intent much clearer than type(None) though.
Georg
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)