Python 2.4 removes None data type?
gaude...@gmail.com
data type was converted to a constant:
http://python.org/doc/2.4/whatsnew/node15.html
"""
# None is now a constant; code that binds a new value to the name
"None" is now a syntax error.
"""
So, what's the implications of this? I find the lack of explanation a
little puzzling, since I've written code that compares a variable's
type with the 'None' type. For example, a variable would be
initialized to 'None' and if it went through a loop unchanged, I could
determine this at the end by using a conditional type(var) ==
type(None). What will type(None) return now?
Tim Peters
> I just read in the 'What's New in Python 2.4' document that the None
> data type was converted to a constant:
> http://python.org/doc/2.4/whatsnew/node15.html
>
> """
> # None is now a constant; code that binds a new value to the name
> "None" is now a syntax error.
> """
>
> So, what's the implications of this?
No implications, for any sane code. You can no longer do things like this:
>>> None = 2
SyntaxError: assignment to None
That's all.
> I find the lack of explanation a little puzzling, since I've written code that
> compares a variable's type with the 'None' type. For example, a variable
> would be initialized to 'None' and if it went through a loop unchanged, I could
> determine this at the end by using a conditional type(var) == type(None).
Python's None is a singleton, meaning that there is a single, unique
instance of type type(None). So in the case you describe, it's
correct, and idiomatic, to test
if var is None:
instead. Checking type(var) against type(None) will still work, but
was never the best way to do it.
If you have an expression like
var = None
that's fine. You're not changing the binding of name "None" there,
you're changing the binding of name "var".
> What will type(None) return now?
That hasn't changed:
>>> type(None)
<type 'NoneType'>
Gary D. Duzan
Empirically, NoneType, same as before. The change you refer to is
to prevent the user from doing silly things like:
==========================================================================
Python 2.3.4 (#1, Feb 8 2005, 13:07:40)
[GCC 3.3.3 (NetBSD nb3 20040520)] on netbsd2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> type(None)
<type 'NoneType'>
>>> None="fred"
<stdin>:1: SyntaxWarning: assignment to None
>>> None
'fred'
>>> type(None)
<type 'str'>
>>>
==========================================================================
Python 2.4 (#1, Mar 4 2005, 16:55:16)
[GCC 3.3.3 (NetBSD nb3 20040520)] on netbsd2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> type(None)
<type 'NoneType'>
>>> None="Fred"
SyntaxError: assignment to None
>>> type(None)
<type 'NoneType'>
>>>
==========================================================================
So your idiom should still work. Note that since there is only
one NoneType instance (i.e. None), you can just test for "var is None"
and save yourself some work.
Gary Duzan
BBN Technologies
Warren Postma
> I just read in the 'What's New in Python 2.4' document that the None
> data type was converted to a constant:
> http://python.org/doc/2.4/whatsnew/node15.html
Implication: A long standing wart in Python now gone. Its time to
gloat. Are there any really evil glitches LEFT in Python? Now go look at
Perl and come back and say "Thank-deity-of-my-choice-I'm-using-Python".
Warren
Steve Holden
print >> file, stuff
@decorator
regards
Steve
--
Meet the Python developers and your c.l.py favorites March 23-25
Come to PyCon DC 2005 http://www.pycon.org/
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Michael Hoffman
> Implication: A long standing wart in Python now gone. Its time to
> gloat. Are there any really evil glitches LEFT in Python? Now go look at
> Perl and come back and say "Thank-deity-of-my-choice-I'm-using-Python".
The fact that True and False are not constants?
--
Michael Hoffman
Roy Smith
"gaude...@gmail.com" <gaude...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, *why* did you test against type(None). What did it
buy you compared to the simpler var == None'?
In any case, it looks like it does the right thing:
Python 2.4 (#1, Jan 17 2005, 14:59:14)
John Machin
gaude...@gmail.com wrote:
> I just read in the 'What's New in Python 2.4' document that the None
> data type was converted to a constant:
> http://python.org/doc/2.4/whatsnew/node15.html
>
> """
> # None is now a constant; code that binds a new value to the name
> "None" is now a syntax error.
> """
>
> So, what's the implications of this?
Relax. The sky is not falling.
> I find the lack of explanation a
> little puzzling, since I've written code that compares a variable's
> type with the 'None' type.
It is saying that if you had been silly enough to do
None = "fubar"
you will now get a syntax error.
It said absolutely nothing about "removes None data type".
There are (at least) two possible reasons for a lack of explanation:
(1) Python is one of those expensive software products that hit you
with "upgrades" where you have difficulty finding about the changes in
advance (let alone participarting in the design process) and require
you to recode large chunks of your application but you can't find out
with any sort of precision the necessary changes might be from the
vague descriptions on a complex and ever-changing website.
(2) Unless you have done something completely idiotic [which the change
is designed to prevent], no change is required to your code. OR, like
for the changes to integer division, the change is announced for a
future version, you can do "from __future__ inport whatever". Any
furore (and there have been some doozies) noticeable in the newsgroup
is part of the design process, and has died down well before the
changes are released.
Which do you think is more likely?
> For example, a variable would be
> initialized to 'None' and if it went through a loop unchanged, I
could
> determine this at the end by using a conditional type(var) ==
> type(None).
or by var == None or var is None
> What will type(None) return now?
Constants have types. What made you think that its type would change?
gaude...@gmail.com
code. I was simply throwing together a possible situation. Had I
thought about it for more than a second I would have remembered how I
would actually use it.
Thanks for clearing up the confusion. I wasn't previously aware that
you could assign anything to None. Glad it's been changed, because
this would be the kind of thing to spawn evil code.
John J. Lee
> Warren Postma wrote:
[...]
> > gloat. Are there any really evil glitches LEFT in Python? Now go
> > look at Perl and come back and say
> > "Thank-deity-of-my-choice-I'm-using-Python".
> >
> Remaining warts that won't disappear:
>
> print >> file, stuff
Not beautiful, yes, but evil? Why?
> @decorator
Evil in the wrong hands...
John
Warren Postma
> The fact that True and False are not constants?
Yowza.
a = True
b = False
False = a
True = b
if (1==2)==True:
print "Doom"
Warren Postma
> The fact that True and False are not constants?
Yowza.
Steven Bethard
Why stop there when you can really cause some doom:
py> import __builtin__ as bltin
py> bltin.True, bltin.False = bltin.False, bltin.True
As an example of what doom this causes, try typing it at the interactive
prompt, and then see if you can enter anything else. I can't -- the
prompt just locks up. Woo-hoo! Another way to shoot myself (and my
users) in the foot! =)
STeVe
Brian van den Broek
Hi all,
just tried this in IDLE:
IDLE 1.1
>>> import __builtin__ as bltin
>>> bltin.True, bltin.False = bltin.False, bltin.True
>>> ================================ RESTART
================================
The restart was done by IDLE itself -- poor thing just gave up. So, it
looks like Steve has found a `commit suicide' command for an IDLE
shell :-)
Best to all,
Brian vdB
Jacek Generowicz
> gaude...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I just read in the 'What's New in Python 2.4' document that the None
> > data type was converted to a constant:
> > http://python.org/doc/2.4/whatsnew/node15.html
>
> Implication: A long standing wart in Python now gone. Its time to
> gloat. Are there any really evil glitches LEFT in Python?
Python 2.4 (#1, Dec 1 2004, 14:23:15)
[GCC 3.2.3] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> True, False = False, True
>>> True
False
>>>
Jarek Zgoda
>>Implication: A long standing wart in Python now gone. Its time to
>>gloat. Are there any really evil glitches LEFT in Python?
>
> Python 2.4 (#1, Dec 1 2004, 14:23:15)
> [GCC 3.2.3] on linux2
> Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>
>>>>True, False = False, True
>>>>True
>
> False
Ugh, today I've found this in some legacy code (yes, there *is* legacy
code in Python). And I will not touch this module until such syntax
become illegal.
--
Jarek Zgoda
http://jpa.berlios.de/ | http://www.zgodowie.org/