PEP: 505 Title: None-aware operators Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ Author: Mark E. Haase Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 18-Sep-2015 Python-Version: 3.6 Abstract ======== Several modern programming languages have so-called "``null``-coalescing" or "``null``- aware" operators, including C# [1]_, Dart [2]_, Perl, Swift, and PHP (starting in version 7). These operators provide syntactic sugar for common patterns involving null references. * The "``null``-coalescing" operator is a binary operator that returns its left operand if it is not ``null``. Otherwise it returns its right operand. * The "``null``-aware member access" operator accesses an instance member only if that instance is non-``null``. Otherwise it returns ``null``. (This is also called a "safe navigation" operator.) * The "``null``-aware index access" operator accesses an element of a collection only if that collection is non-``null``. Otherwise it returns ``null``. (This is another type of "safe navigation" operator.) The purpose of this PEP is to explore the possibility of implementing similar operators in Python. It provides some background material and then offers several competing alternatives for implementation. The initial reaction to this idea is majority negative. Even if ultimately rejected, this PEP still serves a purpose: to fully document the reasons why Python should not add this behavior, so that it can be pointed to in the future when the question inevitably arises again. (This is the null alternative, so to speak!) This proposal advances multiple alternatives, and it should be considered severable. It may be accepted in whole or in part. For example, the safe navigation operators might be rejected even if the ``null``-coalescing operator is approved, or vice-versa. Of course, Python does not have ``null``; it has ``None``, which is conceptually distinct. Although this PEP is inspired by "``null``-aware" operators in other languages, it uses the term "``None``-aware" operators to describe some hypothetical Python implementations. Background ========== Specialness of ``None`` ----------------------- The Python language does not currently define any special behavior for ``None``. This PEP suggests making ``None`` a special case. This loss of generality is a noticeable drawback of the proposal. A generalization of ``None``-aware operators is set forth later in this document in order to avoid this specialization. Utility of ``None`` ------------------- One common criticism of adding special syntax for ``None`` is that ``None`` shouldn't be used in the first place: it's a code smell. A related criticism is that ``None``-aware operators are used to silence errors (such as the novice misunderstanding of an implicit ``return None``) akin to `PHP's @ operator `_. Therefore, the utility of ``None`` must be debated before discussing whether to add new behavior around it. Python does not have any concept of ``null``. Every Python identifier must refer to an instance, so there cannot be any ``null`` references. Python does have a special instance called ``None`` that can be used to represent missing values, but ``None`` is conceptually distinct from ``null``. The most frequent use of ``None`` in Python is to provide a default value for optional arguments when some other default object is unwieldy. For example: ``def get(url, proxy=None):``. In this case, ``proxy`` is an optional argument. If ``proxy`` is ``None``, then the request should be sent directly to the server; otherwise, the request should be routed through the specified proxy server. This use of ``None`` is preferred here to some other sentinel value or the Null Object Pattern. [3]_ Examples of this form abound. Consider ``types.py`` in the standard library:: def prepare_class(name, bases=(), kwds=None): if kwds is None: kwds = {} else: kwds = dict(kwds) ... Another frequent use of ``None`` is interfacing with external systems. Many of those other systems have a concept of ``null``. Therefore, Python code must have a way of representing ``null``, and typically it is represented by ``None``. For example, databases can have ``null`` values, and most Python database drivers will convert ``null`` to ``None`` when retrieving data from a database, and will convert from ``None`` back to ``null`` when sending data to a database. This convention of interchanging ``null`` and ``None`` is widespread in Python. It is canonized in the Python DBAPI (PEP-249). [4]_ The ``json`` module in the standard library and the third party PyYAML package both use ``None`` to represent their respective languages' ``null``. The C language ``null`` often bleeds into Python, too, particularly for thin wrappers around C libraries. For example, in ``pyopenssl``, the ``X509`` class has `a get_notBefore() method `_ that returns either a timestamp or ``None``. This function is a thin wrapper around an OpenSSL function with the return type ``ASN1_TIME *``. Because this C pointer may be ``null``, the Python wrapper must be able to represent ``null``, and ``None`` is the chosen representation. The representation of ``null`` is particularly noticeable when Python code is marshalling data between two systems. For example, consider a Python server that fetches data from a database and converts it to JSON for consumption by another process. In this case, it's often desirable that ``null`` in the database can be easily translated to ``null`` in JSON. If ``None`` is not used for this purpose, then each package will have to define its own representation of ``null``, and converting between these representations adds unnecessary complexity to the Python glue code. Therefore, the preference for avoiding ``None`` is nothing more than a preference. ``None`` has legitimate uses, particularly in specific types of software. Any hypothetical ``None``-aware operators should be construed as syntactic sugar for simplifying common patterns involving ``None``, and *should not be construed* as error handling behavior. Behavior In Other Languages --------------------------- Given that ``null``-aware operators exist in other modern languages, it may be helpful to quickly understand how they work in those languages. C# example:: /* Null-coalescing. */ String s1 = null; String s2 = "hello"; String s3 = s1 ?? s2; Console.WriteLine("s3 is: " + s3); // s3 is: hello /* Null-aware member access, a.k.a. safe navigation. */ Console.WriteLine("s1.Length is: " + s1?.Length); Console.WriteLine("s2.Length is: " + s2?.Length); // s1.Length is: // s2.Length is: 5 /* Null-aware index access, a.k.a. safe navigation. */ Dictionary d1 = null; Dictionary d2 = new Dictionary { { "foo", "bar" }, { "baz", "bat" } }; Console.WriteLine("d1[\"foo\"] is: " + d1?["foo"]); Console.WriteLine("d2[\"foo\"] is: " + d2?["foo"]); // d1["foo"] is: // d2["foo"] is: bar /* Short Circuiting */ Console.WriteLine("s1 trim/upper is: " + s1?.Trim().Length); Console.WriteLine("s2 trim/upper is: " + s2?.Trim().Length); // s1 trimmed length is: // s2 trimmed length is: 5 String s4 = s1 ?? s2 ?? DoError(); Console.WriteLine("s4 is: " + s4) // s4 is: hello A `working example `_ can be viewed online. Of utmost importance, notice the short circuiting behavior. The short circuiting of ``??`` is similar to short circuiting of other boolean operators such as ``||`` or ``&&`` and should not be surprising. Helpfully, `?.` is *also* short circuiting: ``s1?.Trim()`` evaluates to null, but ``s1?.Trim().Length`` does not attempt to dereference the ``null`` pointer. Rationale ========= Existing Alternatives --------------------- Python does not have any specific ``None``-aware operators, but it does have operators that can be used for a similar purpose. This section describes why these alternatives may be undesirable for some common ``None`` patterns. ``or`` Operator ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Similar behavior can be achieved with the ``or`` operator, but ``or`` checks whether its left operand is false-y, not specifically ``None``. This can lead to surprising behavior. Consider the scenario of computing the price of some products a customer has in his/her shopping cart:: >>> price = 100 >>> requested_quantity = 5 >>> default_quantity = 1 >>> (requested_quantity or default_quantity) * price 500 >>> requested_quantity = None >>> (requested_quantity or default_quantity) * price 100 >>> requested_quantity = 0 >>> (requested_quantity or default_quantity) * price # oops! 100 An experienced Python developer should know how ``or`` works and be capable of avoiding bugs like this. However, getting in the habit of using ``or`` for this purpose still might cause an experienced developer to occasionally make this mistake, especially when refactoring existing code and not carefully paying attention to the possible values of the left-hand operand. For inexperienced developers, the problem is worse. The top Google hit for "python null coalesce" is a `StackOverflow page `_, and the top answer says to use ``or``. The top answer goes on to explain the caveats of using ``or`` like this, but how many beginning developers go on to read all those caveats? The common usage of ``or`` for the purpose of providing default values is undeniable, and yet it is also booby-trapped for unsuspecting newcomers. This suggests that a safe operator for providing default values would have positive utility. While some critics claim that ``None-aware`` operators will be abused for error handling, they are no more prone to abuse than ``or`` is. Ternary Operator ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Another common way to intialize default values is to use the ternary operator. Here is an excerpt from the popular `Requests package `_:: data = [] if data is None else data files = [] if files is None else files headers = {} if headers is None else headers params = {} if params is None else params hooks = {} if hooks is None else hooks This particular formulation has the undesirable effect of putting the operands in an unintuitive order: the brain thinks, "use ``data`` if possible and use ``[]`` as a fallback," but the code puts the fallback *before* the preferred value. The author of this package could have written it like this instead:: data = data if data is not None else [] files = files if files is not None else [] headers = headers if headers is not None else {} params = params if params is not None else {} hooks = hooks if hooks is not None else {} This ordering of the operands is more intuitive, but it requires 4 extra characters (for "not "). It also highlights the repetition of identifiers: ``data if data``, ``files if files``, etc. This example benefits from short identifiers, but what if the tested expression is longer and/or has side effects? This is addressed in the next section. Motivating Examples ------------------- The purpose of this PEP is to simplify some common patterns involving ``None``. This section presents some examples of common ``None`` patterns and explains the drawbacks. This first example is from a Python web crawler that uses the popular Flask framework as a front-end. This function retrieves information about a web site from a SQL database and formats it as JSON to send to an HTTP client:: class SiteView(FlaskView): @route('/site/', methods=['GET']) def get_site(self, id_): site = db.query('site_table').find(id_) return jsonify( first_seen=site.first_seen.isoformat() if site.first_seen is not None else None, id=site.id, is_active=site.is_active, last_seen=site.last_seen.isoformat() if site.last_seen is not None else None, url=site.url.rstrip('/') ) Both ``first_seen`` and ``last_seen`` are allowed to be ``null`` in the database, and they are also allowed to be ``null`` in the JSON response. JSON does not have a native way to represent a ``datetime``, so the the server's contract states that any non-``null`` date is represented as a ISO-8601 string. Note that this code is invalid by PEP-8 standards: several lines are over the line length limit. In fact, *including it in this document* violates the PEP formatting standard! But it's not unreasonably indented, nor are any of the identifiers excessively long. The excessive line length is due to the repetition of identifiers on both sides of the ternary ``if`` and the verbosity of the ternary itself (10 characters out of a 78 character line length). One way to fix this code is to replace each ternary with a full ``if/else`` block:: class SiteView(FlaskView): @route('/site/', methods=['GET']) def get_site(self, id_): site = db.query('site_table').find(id_) if site.first_seen is None: first_seen = None else: first_seen = site.first_seen.isoformat() if site.last_seen is None: last_seen = None else: last_seen = site.last_seen.isoformat() return jsonify( first_seen=first_seen, id=site.id, is_active=site.is_active, last_seen=last_seen, url=site.url.rstrip('/') ) This version definitely isn't *bad*. It is easy to read and understand. On the other hand, adding 8 lines of code to express this common behavior feels a bit heavy, especially for a deliberately simplified example. If a larger, more complicated data model was being used, then it would get tedious to continually write in this long form. The readability would start to suffer as the number of lines in the function grows, and a refactoring would be forced. Another alternative is to rename some of the identifiers:: class SiteView(FlaskView): @route('/site/', methods=['GET']) def get_site(self, id_): site = db.query('site_table').find(id_) fs = site.first_seen ls = site.last_seen return jsonify( first_seen=fs.isodate() if fs is not None else None, id=site.id, is_active=site.is_active, last_seen=ls.isodate() if ls is not None else None,, url=site.url.rstrip('/') ) This adds fewer lines of code than the previous example, but it comes at the expense of introducing extraneous identifiers that amount to nothing more than aliases. These new identifiers are short enough to fit a ternary expression onto one line, but the identifiers are also less intuitive, e.g. ``fs`` versus ``first_seen``. As a quick preview, consider an alternative rewrite using a new operator ``πŸ’©``. (This spelling of the operator is merely a placeholder so that the *concept* can be debated without arguing about *spelling*. It is not intended to reflect the public's opinion of said operator. It may, however, bring new meaning to the phrase "code smell".):: class SiteView(FlaskView): @route('/site/', methods=['GET']) def get_site(self, id_): site = db.query('site_table').find(id_) return jsonify( first_seen=siteπŸ’©first_seen.isoformat(), id=site.id, is_active=site.is_active, last_seen=siteπŸ’©last_seen.isoformat(), url=site.url.rstrip('/') ) The ``πŸ’©`` operator behaves as a "safe navigation" operator, allowing a more concise syntax where the expression ``site.first_seen`` is not duplicated. The next example is from a trending project on GitHub called `Grab `_, which is a Python scraping library:: class BaseUploadObject(object): def find_content_type(self, filename): ctype, encoding = mimetypes.guess_type(filename) if ctype is None: return 'application/octet-stream' else: return ctype class UploadContent(BaseUploadObject): def __init__(self, content, filename=None, content_type=None): self.content = content if filename is None: self.filename = self.get_random_filename() else: self.filename = filename if content_type is None: self.content_type = self.find_content_type(self.filename) else: self.content_type = content_type class UploadFile(BaseUploadObject): def __init__(self, path, filename=None, content_type=None): self.path = path if filename is None: self.filename = os.path.split(path)[1] else: self.filename = filename if content_type is None: self.content_type = self.find_content_type(self.filename) else: self.content_type = content_type .. note:: I don't know the author of the Grab project. I used it as an example because it is a trending repo on GitHub and it has good examples of common ``None`` patterns. This example contains several good examples of needing to provide default values. It is a bit verbose as it is, and it is certainly not improved by the ternary operator:: class BaseUploadObject(object): def find_content_type(self, filename): ctype, encoding = mimetypes.guess_type(filename) return 'application/octet-stream' if ctype is None else ctype class UploadContent(BaseUploadObject): def __init__(self, content, filename=None, content_type=None): self.content = content self.filename = self.get_random_filename() if filename \ is None else filename self.content_type = self.find_content_type(self.filename) \ if content_type is None else content_type class UploadFile(BaseUploadObject): def __init__(self, path, filename=None, content_type=None): self.path = path self.filename = os.path.split(path)[1] if filename is \ None else filename self.content_type = self.find_content_type(self.filename) \ if content_type is None else content_type The first ternary expression is tidy, but it reverses the intuitive order of the operands: it should return ``ctype`` if it has a value and use the string literal as fallback. The other ternary expressions are unintuitive and so long that they must be wrapped. The overall readability is worsened, not improved. This code *might* be improved, though, if there was a syntactic shortcut for this common need to supply a default value. We'll assume the fictitious operator ``βœŠπŸ†`` to avoid a premature debate about the spelling of said operator:: class BaseUploadObject(object): def find_ctype(self, filename): ctype, encoding = mimetypes.guess_type(filename) return ctype βœŠπŸ† 'application/octet-stream' class UploadContent(BaseUploadObject): def __init__(self, content, filename=None, content_type=None): self.content = content self.filename = filename βœŠπŸ† self.get_random_filename() self.content_type = content_type βœŠπŸ† self.find_ctype(self.filename) class UploadFile(BaseUploadObject): def __init__(self, path, filename=None, content_type=None): self.path = path self.filename = filename βœŠπŸ† os.path.split(path)[1] self.content_type = content_type βœŠπŸ† self.find_ctype(self.filename) This syntax has an intuitive ordering of the operands, e.g. ``ctype`` -- the preferred value -- comes before the fallback value. The terseness of the syntax also makes for fewer lines of code and less code to visually parse. .. note:: I cheated on the last example: I renamed ``find_content_type`` to ``find_ctype`` in order to fit two of the lines under 80 characters. If you find this underhanded, you can go back and apply the same renaming to the previous 2 examples. You'll find that it doesn't change the conclusions. Usage Of ``None`` In The Standard Library ----------------------------------------- The previous sections show some code patterns that are claimed to be "common", but how common are they? The attached script `find-pep505.py `_ is meant to answer this question. It uses the ``ast`` module to search for variations of the following patterns in any ``*.py`` file. >>> # None-coalescing if block ... >>> if a is None: ... a = b >>> # [Possible] None-coalescing "or" operator ... >>> a or 'foo' >>> a or [] >>> a or {} >>> # None-coalescing ternary ... >>> a if a is not None else b >>> b if a is None else a >>> # Safe navigation "and" operator ... >>> a and a.foo >>> a and a['foo'] >>> a and a.foo() >>> # Safe navigation if block ... >>> if a is not None: ... a.foo() >>> # Safe navigation ternary ... >>> a.foo if a is not None else b >>> b if a is None else a.foo This script takes one or more names of Python source files to analyze:: $ python3 find-pep505.py test.py $ find /usr/lib/python3.4 -name '*.py' | xargs python3 find-pep505.py The script prints out any matches it finds. Sample:: None-coalescing if block: /usr/lib/python3.4/inspect.py:594 if _filename is None: _filename = getsourcefile(object) or getfile(object) [Possible] None-coalescing `or`: /usr/lib/python3.4/lib2to3/refactor.py:191 self.explicit = explicit or [] None-coalescing ternary: /usr/lib/python3.4/decimal.py:3909 self.clamp = clamp if clamp is not None else dc.clamp Safe navigation `and`: /usr/lib/python3.4/weakref.py:512 obj = info and info.weakref() Safe navigation `if` block: /usr/lib/python3.4/http/cookiejar.py:1895 if k is not None: lc = k.lower() else: lc = None Safe navigation ternary: /usr/lib/python3.4/sre_parse.py:856 literals = [None if s is None else s.encode('latin-1') for s in literals] .. note:: Coalescing with ``or`` is marked as a "possible" match, because it's not trivial to infer whether ``or`` is meant to coalesce False-y values (correct) or if it meant to coalesce ``None`` (incorrect). On the other hand, we assume that ``and`` is always incorrect for safe navigation. The script has been tested against `test.py `_ and the Python 3.4 standard library, but it should work on any arbitrary Python 3 source code. The complete output from running it against the standard library is attached to this proposal as `find-pep505.out `_. The script counts how many matches it finds and prints the totals at the end:: Total None-coalescing `if` blocks: 426 Total [possible] None-coalescing `or`: 119 Total None-coalescing ternaries: 21 Total Safe navigation `and`: 9 Total Safe navigation `if` blocks: 55 Total Safe navigation ternaries: 7 This is a total of 637 possible matches for these common code patterns in the standard library. Allowing for some false positives and false negatives, it is fair to say that these code patterns are definitely common in the standard library. Rejected Ideas -------------- Several related ideas were discussed on python-ideas, and some of these were roundly rejected by BDFL, the community, or both. For posterity's sake, some of those ideas are recorded here. ``None``-aware Function Call ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The ``None``-aware syntax applies to attribute and index access, so it seems natural to ask if it should also apply to function invocation syntax. It might be written as ``foo?()``, where ``foo`` is only called if it is not None. This idea was quickly rejected, for several reasons. First, no other mainstream language has such syntax. Moreover, it would be difficult to discern if a function call returned ``None`` because the function itself returned ``None`` or because it was short-circuited. Finally, Python evaluates arguments to a function before it looks up the function itself, so ``foo?(bar())`` would still call ``bar()`` even if ``foo`` is ``None``. This behaviour is unexpected for a so-called "short-circuiting" operator. Instead, the "``None``-severing" operator is proposed below. This operator offers a concise form for writing ``None``-aware function expressions that is truly short-circuiting. ``?`` Unary Postfix Operator ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To generalize the ``None``-aware behavior and limit the number of new operators introduced, a unary, postfix operator spelled ``?`` was suggested. The idea is that ``?`` might return a special object that could would override dunder methods that return ``self``. For example, ``foo?`` would evaluate to ``foo`` if it is not ``None``, otherwise it would evaluate to an instance of ``NoneQuestion``:: class NoneQuestion(): def __call__(self, *args, **kwargs): return self def __getattr__(self, name): return self def __getitem__(self, key): return self With this new operator and new type, an expression like ``foo?.bar[baz]`` evaluates to ``NoneQuestion`` if ``foo`` is None. This is a nifty generalization, but it's difficult to use in practice since most existing code won't know what ``NoneQuestion`` is. Going back to one of the motivating examples above, consider the following:: >>> import json >>> created = None >>> json.dumps({'created': created?.isoformat()})`` The JSON serializer does not know how to serialize ``NoneQuestion``, nor will any other API. This proposal actually requires *lots of specialized logic* throughout the standard library and any third party library. At the same time, the ``?`` operator may also be **too general**, in the sense that it can be combined with any other operator. What should the following expressions mean? >>> x? + 1 >>> x? -= 1 >>> x? == 1 >>> ~x? This degree of generalization is not useful. The operators actually proposed herein are intentionally limited to a few operators that are expected to make it easier to write common code patterns. Haskell-style ``Maybe`` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Haskell has a concept called `Maybe `_ that encapsulates the idea of an optional value without relying on any special keyword (e.g. ``null``) or any special instance (e.g. ``None``). In Haskell, the purpose of ``Maybe`` is to avoid separate handling of "something" and nothing". The concept is so heavily intertwined with Haskell's lazy evaluation that it doesn't translate cleanly into Python. There is a Python package called `pymaybe `_ that provides a rough approximation. The documentation shows the following example that appears relevant to the discussion at hand:: >>> maybe('VALUE').lower() 'value' >>> maybe(None).invalid().method().or_else('unknown') 'unknown' The function ``maybe()`` returns either a ``Something`` instance or a ``Nothing`` instance. Similar to the unary postfix operator described in the previous section, ``Nothing`` overrides dunder methods in order to allow chaining on a missing value. Note that ``or_else()`` is eventually required to retrieve the underlying value from ``pymaybe``'s wrappers. Furthermore, ``pymaybe`` does not short circuit any evaluation. Although ``pymaybe`` has some strengths and may be useful in its own right, it also demonstrates why a pure Python implementation of coalescing is not nearly as powerful as support built into the language. Specification ============= This PEP suggests 4 new operators be added to Python: 1. ``None``-coalescing operator 2. ``None``-severing operator 3. ``None``-aware attribute access 4. ``None``-aware index access/slicing We will continue to assume the same spellings as in the previous sections in order to focus on behavior before diving into the much more contentious issue of how to spell these operators. A generalization of these operators is also proposed below under the heading "Generalized Coalescing". ``None``-Coalescing Operator ---------------------------- The ``None``-coalescing operator is a short-circuiting, binary operator that behaves in the following way. 1. Evaluate the left operand first. 2. If the left operand is not ``None``, then return it immediately. 3. Else, evaluate the right operand and return the result. Some simple examples:: >>> 1 βœŠπŸ† 2 1 >>> None βœŠπŸ† 2 2 >>> 1 βœŠπŸ† None 1 Importantly, note that the right operand is not evaluated unless the left operand is None:: >>> def err(): raise Exception('foo') >>> 1 βœŠπŸ† err() 1 >>> None βœŠπŸ† err() Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in File "", line 1, in err Exception: foo The operator is left associative. Combined with its short circuiting behavior, this makes the operator easy to chain:: >>> timeout = None >>> local_timeout = 60 >>> global_timeout = 300 >>> timeout βœŠπŸ† local_timeout βœŠπŸ† global_timeout 60 >>> local_timeout = None >>> timeout βœŠπŸ† local_timeout βœŠπŸ† global_timeout 300 >>> import time >>> timeout βœŠπŸ† local_timeout βœŠπŸ† global_timeout βœŠπŸ† time.sleep(10) 300 Note in the last example that ``time.sleep(10)`` represents an expensive function call, e.g. initializing a complex data structure. In this example ``time.sleep`` is not evaluated, and the result ``300`` is returned instantly. The operator has precedence lower than ``not`` but higher than ``and`` and ``or``. This precedence makes reasoning about the order of operations comfortable, because it has precedence similar to the operators used for coalescing false-y values. Here are pairs of examples, where each item in the pair is evaluated identically to the other item in the pair:: >>> not None βœŠπŸ† False True >>> (not None) βœŠπŸ† False True >>> 'foo' in dict() βœŠπŸ† {'foo': 'bar'} False >>> ('foo' in dict()) βœŠπŸ† {'foo': 'bar'} False >>> 1 == None βœŠπŸ† 1 False >>> (1 == None) βœŠπŸ† 1 False But ``and`` and ``or`` have lower precedence:: >>> 2 or None βœŠπŸ† err() Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in File "", line 1, in err Exception: foo >>> (2 or None) βœŠπŸ† err() 2 Recall the example above of calculating the cost of items in a shopping cart, and the easy-to-miss bug. This type of bug is not possible with the ``None``- coalescing operator, because there is no implicit type coersion to ``bool``:: >>> price = 100 >>> requested_quantity = 0 >>> default_quantity = 1 >>> (requested_quantity βœŠπŸ† default_quantity) * price 0 The ``None``-coalescing operator also has a corresponding assignment shortcut. The following assignments are semantically equivalent:: >>> foo βœŠπŸ†= [] >>> foo = foo βœŠπŸ† [] The ``None`` coalescing operator improves readability, especially when handling default function arguments. Consider again the example of requests, rewritten to use ``None``-coalescing:: def __init__(self, data=None, files=None, headers=None, params=None, hooks=None): self.data = data βœŠπŸ† [] self.files = files βœŠπŸ† [] self.headers = headers βœŠπŸ† {} self.params = params βœŠπŸ† {} self.hooks = hooks βœŠπŸ† {} The operator makes the intent easier to follow (by putting operands in an intuitive order) and is more concise than the ternary operator, while still preserving the short circuit semantics of the code that it replaces. ``None``-Severing Operator -------------------------- The idea of a ``None``-aware function invocation syntax was discussed on python- ideas, but the idea was rejected by BDFL. The reasons for this rejection are detailed above. Still, calling a function when it is not ``None`` is a common idiom in Python, particularly for callback functions. Consider this hypothetical example:: import time def delay(seconds, callback=None): time.sleep(seconds) if callback is not None: callback() With the rejected ``None``-aware function call syntax, this example might be written more concisely as:: import time def delay(seconds, callback=None): time.sleep(seconds) callback?() Instead, consider a "``None``-severing" operator, however, which is a short- circuiting, boolean operator similar to the ``None``-coalesing operator, except it returns its left operand if that operand is None and otherwise returns the right operand. If the left operand is None, then the right operand is not evaluated. Let's temporarily spell this operator ``βœ‚`` and rewrite the example accordingly:: import time def delay(seconds, callback=None): time.sleep(seconds) callback βœ‚ callback() At this point, you may be astonished at the mere suggestion of such a strange operator with limited practical usefulness. It is proposed here because of the symmetry it has with the ``None``-coalescing operator. This symmetry may be more apparent if the two operators have complementary spellings. In the same way that ``or`` and ``and`` go together, ``None``-coalescing and ``None``- severing might be spelled in a pleasing, symmetric way, e.g. ``or?`` and ``and?``. If such a spelling can be decided on, then this operator adds very little cognitive load or special machinery to the language, and it's minor utility may justify its inclusion in the language. Note that ``None``-severing could also be used as an alternative to "safe navigation", at the expense of some repeated expressions:: >>> from datetime import datetime >>> d = None >>> type(d βœ‚ d.isoformat()) >>> d = datetime.now() >>> d βœ‚ d.isoformat() '2015-10-16T20:53:40.312135' The repeated expression ``d`` makes this less useful than a ``None``-aware attribute access operator, but to repeat what was said at the outset: this proposal may be approved or rejected in whole or in part. This unlikely operator is included in the proposal in order to be comprehensive. The precedence and associativity of the ``None``-severing operator are the same as the ``None``-coalescing operator. ``None``-Aware Attribute Access Operator ---------------------------------------- The ``None``-aware attribute access operator (also called "safe navigation") checks its left operand. If the left operand is ``None``, then the operator evaluates to ``None``. If the the left operand is not ``None``, then the operator accesses the attribute named by the right operand. As in the previous section, we continue to use the temporary spelling ``πŸ’©``:: >>> from datetime import date >>> d = date.today() >>> d.year 2015 >>> d = None >>> d.year Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'year' >>> dπŸ’©year None The operator has the same precedence and associativity as the plain attribute access operator ``.``, but this operator is also short-circuiting in a unique way: if the left operand is ``None``, then any series of attribute access, index access, slicing, or function call operators immediately to the right of it *are not evaluated*. >>> name = ' The Black Knight ' >>> name.strip()[4:].upper() 'BLACK KNIGHT' >>> name = None >>> nameπŸ’©strip()[4:].upper() None If this operator did not short circuit in this way, then the second example would partially evaluate ``nameπŸ’©strip()`` to ``None()`` and then fail with ``TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not callable``. To put it another way, the following expressions are semantically equivalent:: >>> nameπŸ’©strip()[4:].upper() >>> name.strip()[4:].upper() if name is not None else None .. note:: C# implements its safe navigation operators with the same short-circuiting semantics, but Dart does not. In Dart, the second example (suitably translated) would fail. The C# semantics are obviously superior, given the original goal of writing common cases more concisely. The Dart semantics are nearly useless. This operator short circuits one or more attribute access, index access, slicing, or function call operators that are immediately to its right, but it does not short circuit any other operators (logical, bitwise, arithmetic, etc.), nor does it escape parentheses:: >>> d = date.today() >>> dπŸ’©year.numerator + 1 2016 >>> d = None >>> dπŸ’©year.numerator + 1 Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'NoneType' and 'int' >>> (dπŸ’©year).numerator + 1 Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'numerator' Note that the error in the second example is not on the attribute access ``numerator``. In fact, that attribute access is never performed. The error occurs when adding ``None + 1``, because the ``None``-aware attribute access does not short circuit ``+``. The third example fails because the operator does not escape parentheses. In that example, the attribute access ``numerator`` is evaluated and fails because ``None`` does not have that attribute. Finally, observe that short circuiting adjacent operators is not at all the same thing as propagating ``None`` throughout an expression:: >>> userπŸ’©first_name.upper() If ``user`` is not ``None``, then ``user.first_name`` is evaluated. If ``user.first_name`` evaluates to ``None``, then ``user.first_name.upper()`` is an error! In English, this expression says, "``user`` is optional but if it has a value, then it must have a ``first_name``, too."" If ``first_name`` is supposed to be optional attribute, then the expression must make that explicit:: >>> userπŸ’©first_nameπŸ’©upper() The operator is not intended as an error silencing mechanism, and it would be undesirable if its presence infected nearby operators. ``None``-Aware Index Access/Slicing Operator -------------------------------------------- The ``None``-aware index access/slicing operator (also called "safe navigation") is nearly identical to the ``None``-aware attribute access operator. It combines the familiar square bracket syntax ``[]`` with new punctuation or a new keyword, the spelling of which is discussed later:: >>> person = {'name': 'Mark', 'age': 32} >>> person['name'] 'Mark' >>> person = None >>> person['name'] Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable >>> personπŸ’©['name'] None The ``None``-aware slicing operator behaves similarly:: >>> name = 'The Black Knight' >>> name[4:] 'Black Knight' >>> name = None >>> name[4:] Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 1, in TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not subscriptable >>> nameπŸ’©[4:] None These operators have the same precedence as the plain index access and slicing operators. They also have the same short-circuiting behavior as the ``None``-aware attribute access. Generalized Coalescing ---------------------- Making ``None`` a special case may seem too specialized and magical. It is possible to generalize the behavior by making the ``None``-aware operators invoke a dunder method, e.g. ``__coalesce__(self)`` that returns ``True`` if an object should be coalesced and ``False`` otherwise. With this generalization, ``object`` would implement a dunder method equivalent to this:: def __coalesce__(self): return False ``NoneType`` would implement a dunder method equivalent to this:: def __coalesce__(self): return True If this generalization is accepted, then the operators will need to be renamed such that the term ``None`` is not used, e.g. "Coalescing Operator", "Coalesced Member Access Operator", etc. The coalescing operator would invoke this dunder method. The following two expressions are semantically equivalent:: >>> foo βœŠπŸ† bar >>> bar if foo.__coalesce__() else foo The coalesced attribute and index access operators would invoke the same dunder method:: >>> userπŸ’©first_name.upper() >>> None if user.__coalesce__() else user.first_name.upper() This generalization allows for domain-specific ``null`` objects to be coalesced just like ``None``. For example the ``pyasn1`` package has a type called ``Null`` that represents an ASN.1 ``null``. >>> from pyasn1.type import univ >>> univ.Null() βœŠπŸ† univ.Integer(123) Integer(123) In addition to making the proposed operators less specialized, this generalization also makes it easier to work with the Null Object Pattern, [3]_ for those developers who prefer to avoid using ``None``. Operator Spelling ----------------- Despite significant support for the proposed operators, the majority of discussion on python-ideas fixated on the spelling. No consensus was achieved on this question, for two reasons. First, Python eschews punctuation for logical operators. For example, it uses ``not`` instead of ``!`` and ``… if … else …`` instead of ``?:``. Introducing new punctuation is a major turnoff to many Pythonistas, including BDFL. Second, adding new keywords to the language is not backwards compatible. Any new keyword could only be introduced in the next major version, e.g. Python 4. (Even then, `there would be resistance `_.) Furthermore, nearly every single punctuation character on a standard keyboard already has special meaning in Python. The only exceptions are ``$``, ``!``, ``?``, and backtick (as of Python 3). This leaves few options for a new, single- character operator. A two character spelling is more likely, such as the ``??`` and ``?.`` spellings in other programming languages, but this decreases the appeal of punctuation even further. Finally, other projects in the Python universe assign special meaning to punctuation. For example, `IPython `_ assigns special meaning to ``%``, ``%%``, ``?``, ``??``, ``$``, and ``$$``, among others. Out of deference to those projects and the large communities using them, introducing conflicting syntax into Python is undesirable. This is not the first PEP to deal with this dilemma. PEP-308 [5]_, which introduced the ternary operator, faced similar issues. Alternative Spellings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In keeping with the spirit of the PEP, many alternative spellings for these ``None``-aware operators are suggested, including some that conflict with each other. Deconfliction will be handled only if any part of this proposal is accepted. One caveat noted by several respondents on python-ideas: using similar spelling for ``None`` coalescing and other ``None``-aware operators may be confusing, because they have different short circuit semantics: coalescing short circuits on non-``None``, while ``None``-aware attribute/index access short circuit on ``None``. This is a potential downside to spellings like ``??`` and ``?.``. This is only a practical concern if any part of this proposal is actually accepted, so there is no need to pontificate any further. The following spellings are proposed candidates for the ``None``-coalescing operator. 1. ``foo ?? bar ?? baz`` - Pros: same spelling as C# and Dart - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; difficult to google to find out what it means 2. ``foo or? bar or? baz`` - Pros: similar to existing ``or`` operator - Cons: the difference between this and ``or`` is not intuitive; punctuation is ugly 3. ``foo ? bar ? baz`` - Pros: similar to ``??`` used in other languages - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; not used by any other language 4. ``foo $$ bar $$ baz`` - Pros: pronounced "value operator" because it returns the first operand that has a "value" - Cons: punctuation is ugly; not used by any other language 5. ``foo else bar else baz`` - Pros: prettier than punctuation; uses an existing keyword - Cons: difficult or impossible to implement with Python's LL(1) parser 6. ``foo or else bar or else baz`` - Pros: prettier than punctuation; use existing keywords - Cons: difficult or impossible to implement with Python's LL(1) parser 7. ``foo def bar def baz`` - Pros: pronounced 'default'; prettier than punctuation - Cons: difficult or impossible to implement with Python's LL(1) parser 8. ``foo then bar then baz`` - Pros: prettier than punctuation - Cons: requires a new keyword, probably can't be implemented until Python 4 (and maybe not even then) 9. No ``None``-coalescing operator. - (Pros and cons discussed throughout this document.) The following spellings are proposed candidates for the ``None``-severing operator. Each alternative has symmetry with one of the proposed spellings of the ``None``- coalescing operator. 1. ``foo !! bar`` - Pros: symmetric with ``??`` - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; difficult to google to find out what it means 2. ``foo and? bar`` - Pros: symmetric with ``or?`` - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; difficult to google to find out what it means 3. No ``None``-severing operator. - (Pros and cons discussed throughout this document.) The following spellings are proposed candidates for the ``None``-aware attribute access operator. If you find any of these hard to read, consider that we may adopt a convention of adding whitespace around a ``None``-aware operator to improve readability. 1. ``foo?.bar``, ``foo ?. bar`` - Pros: same spelling as C# and Dart - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; difficult to google to find out what it means; difficult to differentiate from ``.`` when reading quickly 2. ``foo$.bar``, ``foo $. bar`` - Pros: symmetry with ``$$`` operator proposed above - Cons: punctuation is ugly; difficult to google; possible confusion because it looks a bit like other languages' string interpolation; difficult to google to find out what it means; difficult to differentiate from ``.`` when reading quickly 3. ``foo!bar``, ``foo ! bar`` - Pros: similar to ordinary ``.`` operator - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; no corresponding spelling for index access (e.g. ``foo!['bar']`` is ambiguous) 4. ``foo->bar``, ``foo -> bar`` - Pros: easier to read than other punctuation; less likely to be confused with ordinary attribute access - Cons: punctuation is ugly; difficult to google; confusing because it is spelled the same as C's dereference operator 5. ``foo try .bar`` - Pros: uses an existing keyword; - Cons: difficult or impossible to implement in Python's LL(1) parser 6. No ``None``-aware attribute access operator. - (Pros and cons discussed throughout this document.) The following spellings are proposed candidates for the ``None``-aware index access/slicing operator. The punctuation used for this operator ought to resemble the punctuation used for the ``None``-aware attribute access. 1. ``foo?['bar']``, ``foo ? ['bar']`` - Pros: same spelling as C# and Dart - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible conflict with IPython; difficult to google to find out what it means 2. ``foo$['bar']``, ``foo $ ['bar']`` - Pros: symmetry with ``$$`` operator proposed above - Cons: punctuation is ugly; possible confusion because it looks a bit like other languages' string interpolation 3. ``foo->['bar']``, ``foo -> ['bar']`` - Pros: easier to read than other punctuation; less likely to be confused with ordinary attribute access - Cons: punctuation is ugly; difficult to google; confusing because it is spelled the same as C's dereference operator 4. ``foo try ['bar']`` - Pros: uses an existing keyword; - Cons: difficult or impossible to implement in Python's LL(1) parser 5. No ``None``-aware index access/slicing operator. - (Pros and cons discussed throughout this document.) Community Poll ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In order to collect data about the Python community's preferences for ``None``-aware operators, and with BDFL's consent, a public poll will be conducted, just as with PEP-308. The poll is viewed as a data-gathering exercise, not a democratic vote. The poll will allow respondents to rank their favorite options from the previous section. The results will be placed in this section of the PEP. ...TBD... Implementation -------------- Given that the need for ``None``-aware operators is questionable and the spelling of said operators is almost incendiary, the implementation details for CPython will be deferred unless and until we have a clearer idea that one (or more) of the proposed operators will be approved. ...TBD... References ========== .. [1] C# Reference: Operators (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6a71f45d.aspx) .. [2] A Tour of the Dart Language: Operators (https://www.dartlang.org/docs/dart-up-and-running/ch02.html#operators) .. [3] Wikipedia: Null Object Pattern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_Object_pattern) .. [4] PEP-249: (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0249/) .. [5] PEP-308 (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0308/) Copyright ========= This document has been placed in the public domain. .. Local Variables: mode: indented-text indent-tabs-mode: nil sentence-end-double-space: t fill-column: 70 coding: utf-8 End: