(original) (raw)
Honestly it looks to me like the status quo is perfect.
>>> a = \[\]
>>> a.append is a.append
False
>>> a.append == a.append
True
>>> b = \[\]
>>> a.append == b.append
False
>>>
>>> a.append is a.append
False
>>> a.append == a.append
True
>>> b = \[\]
>>> a.append == b.append
False
>>>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 10:02 PM Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka@gmail.com> wrote:
22.06.18 00:04, Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev пише:
\> On 21.06.2018 23:40, Guido van Rossum wrote:
\>> I'm with Serhiy here, for mutable values I don't think the methods
\>> should compare equal, even when the values do. For immutables I don't
\>> care either way, it's an implementation detail.
\>>
\> In this light, methods rather shouldn't have a rich comparison logic at
\> all
This would be so if you get the same method object when resolve an
attribute. But a.f is not a.f. Every time a new method object is
created. If we want a.f == a.f, we need to implement a rich comparison
logic.
\> -- at the very least, until we have a realistic use case and can
\> flesh out the requirements for it.
There are realistic use cases. You will get a number of failures in the
Python tests if make method objects incomparable.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
--
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/\~guido)