Soni L. wrote: > it'd be nice if it did the same regardless of args. Sorry, but "it'd be nice" is not a real world use case.
> inspired by PEP 559: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0559/ That PEP was rejected. It's okay to use previously rejected proposals for inspiration, but your proposal would have to include additional real world use cases and arguments that weren't provided in the original PEP. I'm not seeing that in the post above. Many of your previous proposals have led to some interesting discussions, but this one seems exceptionally under-developed. There's nothing wrong with a well developed proposal that gets rejected (as it can lead to highly constructive discussions), or a newcomer to the list that doesn't realize how high the bar is; however, that does not seem to be the case here. Soni, I hope this doesn't come across as harsh and I really don't want to discourage you from making proposals in general, but it's rather inconsiderate of the time of the subscribers to the list to repeatedly post under-developed proposals that lack any real use cases or strong arguments that weren't previously rejected. Remember, everyone taking the time to read your proposal is doing so entirely voluntarily. If you continue to make these types of proposals, you'll soon find that they will not be seriously considered or given as much attention as they otherwise would; making it even more difficult for the proposal to make it into the language (which I assume is a goal). In order for any major/fundamental change proposal to be accepted, it has be sponsored by a core developer, converted into a formal PEP, and then eventually approved by the SC if there's adequate consensus. So, if your proposals stop receiving attention because of a large volume of recent prior proposals that weren't adequately developed, it will be much more difficult, if not practically impossible to find a willing sponsor. Moving forward, I would highly recommend looking at some of the prior proposals on this list that were accepted, and then try to frame yours based upon them. Before posting it to the list, think: "How would this change improve the experience of users? What specific real-world use cases does it have? Is the potential benefit worth the implementation, review, and indefinite maintenance cost? Has a similar proposal been made before? If so, are my counter arguments for the previous rejection reasons strong enough to justify another proposal?". If those questions can't be answered, the proposal is most likely not worth posting in the first place. On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 11:19 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/7NZM6XGGX2OUZVG6HWJU43BXCCX5QYLX/ > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ _______________________________________________ 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/QUCZSA4JFGQZRNCKYZXTISPU2GAOKON4/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
