Hi all,

Reading the iNaN discussion, most of the opposition seems to be that adding iNaN would add a new special value to integers and therefore add new complexity.

I propose, instead, that we make None a subclass of int (or even a certain value of int) to represent iNaN. Therefore:

    >>> None + 1, None - 1, None * 2, None / 2, None // 2

    (None, None, None, nan, None) # mathematical operations on NaN return NaN

    >>> None & 1, None | 1, None ^ 1

    # I'm not sure about this one. The following could be plausible:

    (0, 1, 1)

    # or this might make more sense, as this *is* NaN we're talking about:

    (None, None, None)

    >>> isinstance(None, int)

    True # the whole point of this idea

    >>> issubclass(type(None), int)

    True # no matter whether None *is* an int or just a subclass, this will be true as issubclass(int, int) is True

I know this is a crazy idea, but I thought it could have some merit, so why not throw it out here?

Sharing,

Ken Hilton;