On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 1:20 AM Soni L. <fakedme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Currently type(None) returns None if you call it with no args: > > >>> print(type(None)()) > None > > it'd be nice if it did the same regardless of args. currently it raises: > > >>> print(type(None)(1)) > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> > TypeError: NoneType takes no arguments > > inspired by PEP 559: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0559/ > > >>> NoneType > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> > NameError: name 'NoneType' is not defined
Why should NoneType be any different from other types? If you want a null function, just create one: def return_none(*_a, **_kw): pass What is your use-case for wanting NoneType to behave in this way? Is this yet another idea that actually has no use-case and is just "wouldn't it be nice if we did weird stuff to the language"? I'm starting to have to read python-ideas by first looking at the poster and only then consider the content of the suggestion, instead of what I usually prefer, which is to evaluate an idea on its merits regardless of who posted it. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/KHRYFINMX4UW5NLB55UJEZT67GUOVK6C/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
