On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Armin Rigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Phillip, > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 07:05:12PM -0400, Phillip J. Eby wrote: > > > I did not, however, need the equality of bound methods to be based on > > > object value equality, just value identity. > > > > > > ...at least until recently, anyway. I do have one library that wants > > > to have equality-based comparison of im_self. What I ended up doing > > > is writing code that tests what the current Python interpreter is > > > doing, and if necessary implements a special method type, just for > > > purposes of working around the absence of im_self equality > > > testing. However, it's a pretty specialized case (...) > > > > I found myself in exactly the same case: a pretty specialized example > > where I wanted bound methods to use im_self equality rather than > > identity, solved by writing my own bound-method-like object. But that's > > not really hard to do, and the general tendency (which matches my own > > opinion too) seems to be that using im_self identity is less surprizing. > > > > In general, "x.append" is interchangeable with "x.append" even if > > "x.append is not x.append", so let's go for the least surprizing > > behavior: "m1.im_self is m2.im_self and m1.im_func==m2.im_func". > > Objection? > > +1 > > -- > Adam Olsen, aka Rhamphoryncus >
+1 here too. For 2.6 as well as 3.0. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
