(original) (raw)
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:21:16 +0200
Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:What do you mean?
\> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solipsis@pitrou.net> wrote:
\> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:09:04 +0200
\> > Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall@gmail.com> wrote:
\> >>
\> >> I would like to point out that instructing people does not really
\> >> work. Besides, other examples like this:
\> >>
\> >> if d\[x\] >= 3:
\> >> d\[x\] += 1 don't really work.
\> >
\> > That's a good point. But then, perhaps PyPy should analyze the \_\_eq\_\_
\> > method and decide whether it's likely to have side effects or not (the
\> > answer can be hard-coded for built-in types such as str).
\> >
\> > Regards
\> >
\> > Antoine.
\>
\> Ok. But then how is it valid to have "is" fast-path?
He means you're being unrealistically pedantic :) The number of calls to \_\_eq\_\_ is \_already\_ unpredictable, since (as Mark Shannon said) it depends among other things on the hashing algorithm and the size of the dict. If we were serious about not changing these kinds of aspects between Python implementations, we certainly shouldn't be changing them between versions of the same Python implementation -- and so we would be banned from ever changing the details of the dict type. Absurd.
Thomas Wouters <thomas@python.org>
Hi! I'm an email virus! Think twice before sending your email to help me spread!