In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aahz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>the canonical idiom when you need such distinction is:
>>>
>>>_not_there = object()
>>>def foo(bar=_not_there, baz=_not_there, bap=_not_there):
>>> if bar is _not_there: ...
>>>
>>>Other unique objects can be substituted for the 'sentinel', but I prefer
>>>an empty "object()" because it has no other possible meaning except that
>>>of a distinguishable, identifiable sentinel. IOW, you could set the
>>>_not_there name to [] or {} or many other things, but that could be
>>>slightly confusing for the reader (since the other things might have
>>>other meanings and purposes) while 'object()' shouldn't be.
>>
>> What's your preferred idiom when you're dealing with storable objects?
>
>What's a "storable object"? You mean, something that can be pickled, or
>passed to the .write method of a file object, or stored in a database,
>or what else?
Pickled and/or stored in a DB.
--
Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait
until you hire an amateur." --Red Adair
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
