On Jul 15, 9:44 am, Cameron Simpson <c...@zip.com.au> wrote: > On 15Jul2011 15:28, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> > wrote: > | Against MISSING: users may expect to be able to choose their own sentinel by > | assigning to MISSING. I don't want to support that. > > Well, we don't have readonly values to play with :-( > Personally I'd do what I did above: give it a "private" name like > _MISSING so that people should expect to have inside (and unsupported, > unguarenteed) knowledge if they fiddle with it.
I think the point is to allow users to explicitely use MISSING in their data sets, so it does have to be public. But anyway: ALL_UPPER names are supposed to be treated as constants, so the "warranty void if messed with" still apply. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
