[Python-ideas] Re: Make type(None) the no-op function

24 Apr 2020

      On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:44 AM Soni L.  wrote:
...
On 2020-04-24 12:26 p.m., Chris Angelico wrote:
...
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:20 AM Soni L.  wrote:
...
Currently type(None) returns None if you call it with no args:
...
...
...
print(type(None)())
None
it'd be nice if it did the same regardless of args. currently it raises:
...
...
...
print(type(None)(1))
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: NoneType takes no arguments
inspired by PEP 559: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0559/
...
...
...
NoneType
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
NameError: name 'NoneType' is not defined
Why should NoneType be any different from other types? If you want a
null function, just create one:
def return_none(*_a, **_kw): pass
What is your use-case for wanting NoneType to behave in this way? Is
this yet another idea that actually has no use-case and is just
"wouldn't it be nice if we did weird stuff to the language"? I'm
starting to have to read python-ideas by first looking at the poster
and only then consider the content of the suggestion, instead of what
I usually prefer, which is to evaluate an idea on its merits
regardless of who posted it.
it's not my own use case for once. the PEP clearly lists a use-case. we
should support that use-case.
1) That PEP is rejected YAGNI. So the use-case isn't strong enough.
2) Why should it be NoneType? That makes no sense.

Do you *actually* have a use-case for having NoneType always return
None and ignore its arguments?

ChrisA