[Python-ideas] __missing__ object/keyword
george.sakkis at gmail.com
Sat Nov 8 20:53:00 CET 2008
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Bruce Leban <bruce at leapyear.org> wrote:
There *is* one guaranteed way of ensuring that I can't use a variable's
> value: leaving it unbound. That is, to support this, we would add a new
> syntax something like what George proposed with slightly different
> def foo(x, y=__unbound__):
> where if y is omitted from the call, then y is unbound. This is slightly
> different than what would happen if y were left out of the parameter list as
> in that case, y could reference a global of the same name. In this case, y
> can only reference an unbound local.
> No other changes are required to use this. If I don't check whether or not
> y is bound, then I'll get a NameError when I try to use it, just as with any
> other unbound variable.
I like that, it's more straightforward than checking for identity with a
__missing__ pseudo-object. if this was to be accepted, checking whether a
name is bound would be more common than now, so it might be worthwhile
considering a new isbound('var') builtin as a more explicit (and perhaps
faster) alternative of "if 'var' in locals()".
If this proposal were to be seriously considered, there are of course
> alternative syntaxes that could be considered, like using missing,
> __missing__ or def foo(x, ?y) but that's getting ahead.
+1 for the alternative syntax, reads much better and it's at least as
intuitive as *args and **kwds.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-ideas