On 4/23/12 5:04 PM, John Nagle wrote:
On 4/22/2012 9:34 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 12:43:36 -0700, John Nagle wrote:
On 4/20/2012 9:34 PM, john.tant...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 20, 2012 12:34:46 PM UTC-7, Rotwang wrote:
I believe it says somewhere in the Python docs that it's undefined and
implementation-dependent whether two identical expressions have the
same identity when the result of each is immutable
Bad design. Where "is" is ill-defined, it should raise ValueError.
"is" is never ill-defined. "is" always, without exception, returns True
if the two operands are the same object, and False if they are not. This
is literally the simplest operator in Python.
John, you've been using Python for long enough that you should know this.
I can only guess that you are trolling, although I can't imagine why.
Because the language definition should not be what CPython does.
It isn't. That's the point of leaving some things like the interning of certain
special objects undefined, to make room for other implementations. You seem to
be objecting to that for some bizarre reason.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
