Perl is worse! (was: Python is Wierd!)

[Bjorn Pettersen]

Steve Lamb wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:50:27 +0100, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com> wrote:
> >None doesn't mean "empty object". It means "no object". There's
> >a big difference, whether or not you care to recognise it. As
> >big as the difference between "no bottles" and "an empty bottle",
> >which is insignificant only if all you care about is the beer. :-)
> i
>     Be hard to fool me on that.
> 
> type(a)
> a = None
> type(a)
> 
>     If it  were no object how come it doesn't bomb out again.  Maybe the more
> precise answer would be that I am trying to create the name a and point to
> nothing.  None is not nothing.  None /is/s something.  It is a type.  :P

Sure it is, it's the embodiment (or is that physical reincarnation) of
Nothing-ness.

Note that None is not a type, but it has a type.

Anyone else remember Objective-C and how the type of nil was the bottom
of the type hierarchy (it was a subtype of every type), so you could do
[nil foo:5 bar:6] and it would work for any method?

-b