On 4/21/06, Ron Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Recently I found a case where I wanted to return something that was more > literally *nothing* than a None is. So maybe a null symbol of some sort > might be useful in other cases as well?
You're not gonna get something that's a valid expression *and* is more "nothing" than None. On a case by case basis there might be syntax indicating the absence of something that is distinguishable from 'None'; for example, using *args you can reliaby whether an argument was passed or not (unlike using None as a default, which can be defeated by passing an explicit None). But a generic NULL won't be part of the language. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
