[Python-Dev] Re: redefining is (original) (raw)
Casey Duncan casey at zope.com
Thu Mar 18 14:38:03 EST 2004
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] redefining is
- Next message: [Python-Dev] redefining is
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 10:51:02 -0800 Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> Indeed. Of course, object() is mutable, so there is no proposal to > change the meaning of this program. What I'm concerned about is > someone trying to do the same thing this way: > > missing = 'missing' > > if d.get('somekey', missing) is 'missing': > # it ain't there > > This code contains a bug, but on an implementation that interns > strings that happen to look like identifiers, no test will detect > the bug.
I'm ready to pronounce. The code is buggy. There are good reasons to keep 'is' the way it always was. The definition of 'is' ain't gonna change. So be it.
So then: is is as is was ;^)
-Casey
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] redefining is
- Next message: [Python-Dev] redefining is
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]