Drav Sloan wrote: > Marc Sherman wrote:
>>> How about the geekspeak "noop"?
>> I'd think that that would be more like a comment, and would be surprised
>> to see a "noop" condition expanding its arguments for side effects.
>
> Maybe expand_with_noop or expand_and_ignore?
>
> I think it'll be tricky to pick a single "verb" that will convey the
> effect it has without potential confusion.
>
