The idea is that optional values are either some value or no value, but sometimes the inner "some value" bit can itself be an optional value (in Rust this would be Option<Option<T>>, in C++ it'd be std::optional<std::optional<T>>, in Python it'd hypothetically be Option[Option[T]], etc.). Such a situation gives you three possible states:

- You have an inner value and the inner value is something non-null (an integer, a string, another optional, etc.)

- You have an inner value and the inner value is null

- You do not have an inner value

As a more concrete (albeit somewhat contrived) example, say there's some API you can query for the owner of a particular document ID where the document ID may or may not refer to an actual document (e.g., maybe you got it from a cache and the document has since been deleted). One way to express this would be (using Rust syntax)

    fn get_owner(id: DocumentId) -> Option<Option<UserId>> { ... }

So if you get None, the document does not exist; if you get Some(None), the document exists but it has no owner; and if you get Some(<id>) the document exists and it has an owner.

(This can probably be done better by creating new enums, but it's an example so give me a bit of slack)

A naive port of this signature to Python would be

    def get_owner(id: DocumentId) -> Option[Option[UserId]]: pass

But to type checkers this is equivalent to

    def get_owner(id: DocumentId) -> UserId | None: pass

So now you're in the pickle the OP describes: you can end up with a None, but you no longer knonw whether it means "no document" or "no owner". The Python solution is to basically create a different name for either the outer None (e.g., MISSING as in the OP) or the inner one (e.g., NO_OWNER or the like).

Much Ado About None: Sentinel Values in Python