> BTW, I disagree with your arguments that Optional and Union are > misleading names that can be easily misunderstood, especially in the > usual context of formal arguments in function definitions.
The comment made by Jelle Zijlstra suggested to me suggested that the new syntax might have been a replacer for Union as well, as that is really what the `|` is. I want to clarify though that I do not think Union is a confusing name as Optional. My main argument in the first place was that Optional was a potentially perplexing name choice. > The suggestion of "Noneable" takes the Pythonic implementation of optional > arguments (by defaulting to None) too seriously, at the expense of the > syntactic intention: an argument that may be omitted. Among other > things, very frequently 'None' is *not* an allowed value in the body > of the function It is kind of an edge case scenario from most common applications in Python. Still, if someone were to allow both None and some other type, I would think using Optional for the naming is more incoherent when it really isn't "optional" if you look at the type alone based on the definition. _______________________________________________ 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/HCD4PODP5XEZ3P4ZKQIEZGJL3EANRQRR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
