Maciej wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Dino Viehland <di...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Benjamin wrote: > >> 2010/4/17 Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org>: > >> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> >>> Because Python promises that the object the callee sees as > 'kwargs' > >> is > >> >>> "just a dict". > >> >> > >> >> Huh, I thought kwargs was allowed to be implemented as a > >> >> string-keys-only dict (similar to class and module namespaces) > while > >> >> still be a valid Python implementation. I guess I was wrong. > >> > > >> > Actually I don't know about that. Is there language anywhere in > the > >> > language reference that says this? What do IronPython, Jython, > PyPy > >> > actually do? > >> > >> Similar to CPython, PyPy has dict versions optimized for strings, > >> which fall back to the general version when given non-string keys. > > > > IronPython as well. The only place we use a string only dict is for > > new-style classes whose dict's are wrapped in a dictproxy. > > And yet that breaks some code :-)
Sure, if you do: class C(object): locals()[object()] = 42 dir(C) You lose. Once I'm aware of some piece of code in the wild doing this then I'll be happy to change IronPython to be more compatible. :) _______________________________________________ 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