Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> This isn't really different from the multiple values approach.

If you ignore most of what I said then it’s not.

> Is that multiple values? (Yes.) Or a wrapper type? (Also yes, it's a tuple, a collection of values.)

It’s neither type-safe nor unambiguous.

> This works

For low value of works. Which I guess is all you can ask for in a dynamically typed langage (eg Erlang uses this pattern to fairly good effect, but it has very good support for it).

But it should not be confused with an actual solution to the issue. It can make things less bad (again given good support for this pattern which Python does not have), not actually good.




> It’s neither type-safe nor unambiguous.

How'd you get here? It's exactly as type-safe as the unwrapped hash table, which is admittedly not especially type-safe, and it's fully unambiguous.


> It's exactly as type-safe as the unwrapped hash table, which is admittedly not especially type-safe

Yes.

> and it's fully unambiguous.

No, you have any random value flagged as not present (in fact you can forget about or ignore the flag entirely), and no clue if that means anything.


Can you provide an example of what you mean by "ambiguity"?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: