[Python-ideas] __missing__ object/keyword

Raymond Hettinger python at rcn.com
Thu Nov 6 22:18:58 CET 2008


From: "George Sakkis" <george.sakkis at gmail.com>
> 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.

It would be nice to not introduce a new language feature for every
minor programming idiom.  IMO, growing the language with more
special cases does not make it easier to learn and use.


Raymond




More information about the Python-ideas mailing list