[Python-Dev] redefining is (original) (raw)
Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Thu Mar 18 13:51:02 EST 2004
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] redefining is
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: redefining is
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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.
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] redefining is
- Next message: [Python-Dev] Re: redefining is
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]