@Nathaniel Smith:
> I think the name "symbol" here is pretty confusing. It comes originally from Lisp
> The thing you're talking about is what Python devs call a "sentinel" object.
Thank you for clarifying. I don't know much about Lisp, and I definitely appreciate the historical context that you provided :)
I will refer to the new proposed type as `sentinel` from now on.
@Michael Foord
> unittest.mock includes a sentinel object, with nice repr.
Thank you! I didn't think of looking in the mock library.
This is one step closer, but it still have a few considerations:
1. It doesn't follow the same behaviour as the JS spec. But honestly, we don't have to.
2. It's kinda weird to have to import `unittest.<something>` in code that's not tests. But I think it's just because I'm not used to see it.
@Giampaolo Rodola'
> Historically this has always been achieved by using [...] which does its job just fine.
The main issue with that approach is that you won't get a nice repr
> adding more complexity to the language for no practical benefit
I'm not following. The Python language won't be modified. I'm proposing adding the new type _purely_ for practical benefit.
I think this thread can be resolved as 'used unittest.mock.sentinel'. It doesn't have 'global sentinels', but I'm not convinced they are actually necessary, since `mock.sentinel` objects with the same name compare as equal. Thanks to Nathaniel, I now understand that JS has global symbols for historical reasons that we don't have, and I'm not convinced of their usefulness.
Thank you everybody for you valuable feedback! I really appreciate your time helping me thinking this through :)