Hi all,
Reading the iNaN discussion, most of the opposition seems to be that adding
iNaN would add a new special value to integers and therefore add new
complexity.
I propose, instead, that we make None a subclass of int (or even a certain
value of int) to represent iNaN. Therefore:
>>> None + 1, None - 1, None * 2, None / 2, None // 2
(None, None, None, nan, None) # mathematical operations on NaN return
NaN
>>> None & 1, None | 1, None ^ 1
# I'm not sure about this one. The following could be plausible:
(0, 1, 1)
# or this might make more sense, as this *is* NaN we're talking about:
(None, None, None)
>>> isinstance(None, int)
True # the whole point of this idea
>>> issubclass(type(None), int)
True # no matter whether None *is* an int or just a subclass, this will
be true as issubclass(int, int) is True
I know this is a crazy idea, but I thought it could have some merit, so why
not throw it out here?
Sharing,
Ken Hilton;
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
