Storing empties (was Re: Automatic binding of **kwargs to variables)

Aahz aahz at pythoncraft.com
Mon Oct 31 23:52:54 CET 2005


In article <1h58k4p.12xd7rj1t5peh0N%aleaxit at yahoo.com>,
Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>the canonical idiom when you need such distinction is:
>
>_not_there = object()
>def foo(bar=_not_there, baz=_not_there, bap=_not_there):
>    if bar is _not_there: ...
>
>Other unique objects can be substituted for the 'sentinel', but I prefer
>an empty "object()" because it has no other possible meaning except that
>of a distinguishable, identifiable sentinel.  IOW, you could set the
>_not_there name to [] or {} or many other things, but that could be
>slightly confusing for the reader (since the other things might have
>other meanings and purposes) while 'object()' shouldn't be.

What's your preferred idiom when you're dealing with storable objects?
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait
until you hire an amateur."  --Red Adair



More information about the Python-list mailing list