[Python-Dev] Re: PEP 336, "Make None Callable",
by Andrew McClelland
Nick Coghlan
ncoghlan at iinet.net.au
Mon Nov 8 10:51:14 CET 2004
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> The simplest solution to achieve the rationale of the PEP would be
> to add a function operator.nop. Of course, writing
>
> def nop(*args):pass
>
> isn't that more difficult than writing
>
> from operator import nop
Although the def version above has problems with keyword arguments.
Still, I'd be +0 on
def nop(*args, **kwds): pass
in the operator module, in the spirit of TOOWTDI.
And I meant to add a resounding 'Aye!' to Tim's comment about the
debugging value of None not being callable - that's an obvious indicator
of 'I screwed up', whereas silently returning None as proposed in the
PEP may trigger the error report an arbitrary distance from the original
mistake.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | Brisbane, Australia
Email: ncoghlan at email.com | Mobile: +61 409 573 268
More information about the Python-Dev
mailing list