[Python-ideas] __missing__ object/keyword

[Chris Rebert]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:31 PM, George Sakkis <george.sakkis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Several times I find myself using the following idiom:
>
> _Missing = object()   # sentinel
>
> def foo(x, y=_Missing):
>   if y is _Missing:
>     do_this
>   else:
>     do_that
>
> The reason for using a "private" sentinel is that any python object,
> including None, might be a valid argument. Another option is using
> *args or **kwds instead of y but that obfuscates unnecessarily the
> function signature.
>
> It would be nice if a new object or keyword, say __missing__, was
> introduced as a canonical way to address this common scenario.
> Specifically, the only valid usages of __missing__ would be:
> 1. As a default argument in a callable.
> 2. In identity tests: <var> is __missing__
> Anything else would raise either a SyntaxError (e.g. `x =
> __missing__`) or a RuntimeError/TypeError (e.g. `x = y` if y is
> __missing__). Only the interpreter could assign __missing__ to a name
> when binding objects to formal parameters.
>
> If this was to be accepted, a further generalization could be to allow
> the `var is __missing__` expression even if `var` is not a formal
> parameter. This would be equivalent to:
>
> try: var
> except NameError: expr = True
> else: expr = False
>
> Thoughts ?

By analogy with the necessity of __missing__ when we already have
None, what if I have something that calls foo() and I want __missing__
to be a valid argument? The problem is that an infinite series of
higher-level None-like objects is necessary.
Is the one extra line to define `sentinel` really so bad?

Cheers,
Chris
-- 
Follow the path of the Iguana...
http://rebertia.com

>
> George
> _______________________________________________
> Python-ideas mailing list
> Python-ideas at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
>